Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24
March 2018 www.renewableenergyfocus.

com

RESEARCH REVIEW
PV based distributed generation power
system protection: A review
Hermanus L.R. van der Walt, Ramesh C. Bansal* and Raj Naidoo

Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa

This review paper is focused on common protection challenges related to the integration of distributed
generation (DG) into medium voltage (MV) distribution power systems. Protection challenges, as
indicated by the general scientific community, are explained and discussed. Based on these challenges,
several alternative centralized and decentralized protection alternatives are explained and critically
evaluated. Photovoltaic (PV) based distributed generators are connected to the utility grid through
inverters, which are able to control active and reactive parts of their output and also limit their fault
current contribution. Research is proposed to quantify the risks to protection in conventional power
systems with increasing presence of distributed generation. Since the positive, negative and zero
sequence current output from PV inverters can be controlled, conventional overcurrent protection using
negative and zero sequence current is proposed to increase the protection reliability and maintain
coordination in the presence of distributed generators.

Introduction Conventional power systems take on a radial topology on

In recent years, the world has seen a significant growth in energy distribution level, in which a single source is used to feed several
requirements. To meet this requirement, and driven by environ- loads [11–14]. Due to the typically slow dynamics of the overall
mental issues with conventional power plants, engineers and load on a distribution station, voltage control is done locally by
consumers have started a growing trend in the formation of using reactive compensators and voltage regulators [15]. With the
distributed renewable power plants. Examples of such plants are fast dynamics introduced by inverter based PV plants, the slow
photovoltaic (PV) power plants and wind turbine power plants [1– dynamics of conventional networks are being challenged. Several
4]. The rising cost of electricity has increased the demand for challenges are introduced by the addition of DG such as voltage
renewable alternatives, which has in turn decreased the invest-
control, power quality, reactive power contribution and power
ment cost of renewable alternative energy [5,6]. The high scalabil-
system stability, many of which the general scientific community
ity which renewable alternatives offer, makes it an attractive
are trying to address by using appropriate control techniques
option for small to medium power consumers looking to increase
[16–25].
their security of supply and reduce their electrical reliance upon
Conventional distribution systems are characterized by fault
electricity utilities [7]. The integration of distributed generation or
levels which are significantly higher than load current. This makes
distributed generators (DG) in power system networks pose some
fault detection using overcurrent relays possible. Conventional
concerning challenges for power system protection and control
distribution level feeder protection is based on time grading of
engineers [8–10]. The challenges, such as rising fault levels and bi-
directional power flow, need to be addressed for continuous simple overcurrent relays. Breakers in a given current path from
growth in distributed energy resources. the source to the load are coordinated in such a way, that the
closest upstream breaker seen from a fault will operate first; dis-
*Corresponding author. van der Walt, Hermanus L.R. ([email protected]), Bansal, R. connecting the smallest possible section of a line upon clearance of
C. ([email protected]), Naidoo, R. ([email protected]) a fault. Coordination is maintained by using time grading between

1755-0084/ã 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2017.12.002

33
 RESEARCH REVIEW Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24
March 2018

breakers in a given path to a load [26]. Current research trends all

indicate that this type of conventional protection is being threat-
ened by the addition of DG [27–29], especially taking into account
the effect of changing fault levels on switchgear and other power
system equipment [30]. Adding DGs into a conventional single
source distribution network will result in bi-directional power flow
not only during normal operation but also during faults. It will also
cause dynamic and stochastic fault levels. Overcurrent protection
is typically based on fault levels and grading between breakers is
done assuming a uniformly decreasing fault level as the fault
RESEARCH REVIEW

moves further away from the substation. The addition of DGs

into distribution networks requires a re-evaluation of these con-
ventional protection methods. Current research trends are aimed
toward proposing new protection solutions to highly penetrated
DG power systems, since conventional timed overcurrent protec-
tion can potentially become unreliable and unable to protect the
power system.

Protection risks
With the addition of several generators within a distribution
network, new protection requirements arise for PV plant integra- FIGURE 1
tion, especially with high penetration levels. Distributed genera- Distributed generation distribution network.
tors are characterized by high scalability and typical sizes range
from 1 kW to 1 MW of which typical examples are inverter fed PV
systems, variable speed permanent magnet wind generators, dou- undervoltage condition which will arise at PV3 due to the fault F1.
bly fed asynchronous generators or variable rotor resistance induc- The operating time of breaker B11 will depend on its tripping
tion generators. Inverter type generators are characterized by fault characteristic curve, the fault level of the distribution grid and
currents typically less than 2 times the rated current [31]. Since the distance between the substation and the fault. If the under-
these generators do not have the capacity to supply vast amounts voltage condition created at PV3 is lower than the prescribed low
of fault current during short circuit fault conditions, it is not voltage ride through capability and breaker B11 does not clear the
always possible to pick-up faults by only conventional detection fault faster than the set undervoltage trip condition for DGs, breaker
of overcurrent. Inverters would typically employ voltage and B3a will trip, effectively disconnecting PV3 from the grid without
frequency protection to detect faults [32,33]. The existing grid any requirement to do so to clear the fault. Effective tripping of B11
codes such as the IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed would clear the fault without the need for PV3 to be disconnected.
Resources [34], the German directive for connecting generating Depending on the fault level contribution of a DG such as PV3,
plants to the medium-voltage power grid [35] and the Grid con- and also depending on the strength of the grid in terms of fault
nection code for renewable power plants (RPPS) connected to the levels, other examples could also arise. Due to conventional time
electricity transmission system (TS) or the distribution system (DS) and sensitivity coordination in distribution systems, B21 would be
in South Africa [36] along with interconnection studies [37,38] set to trip faster than B2, which would be set to trip faster than B11.
provides grid connection guidelines such as that generators should B12 and B11 would have the same pick-up and time multiplier
disconnect from the grid if voltage at the point of connection falls settings since they both grade with B1. For a fault F2 on the system,
below 85% within 2 s, and within 0.2 s if the voltage drops below because of the grading, if PV1 contributes sufficient fault current, it
50%. During this fault time, before disconnection, or when the could cause B21 to trip before B12 trips to clear the fault. Having
voltage does not sag enough to disconnect, the generators will B21 trip would not isolate the fault, but would only result in loss of
however still provide fault current into the network. If the PV supply to loads downstream of B21 and it would also result in loss
penetration levels are high enough, this additional fault current of potential income for PV1. The fault ride through capabilities
could cause loss of coordination and false tripping. These condi- required by grid codes only applies to DG POC (Point of Connec-
tions are described below. tion) breakers. The fault ride through capabilities of PV1 would
therefore not have any effect on blocking the protection of B21.
Sympathetic tripping Sympathetic tripping is only applicable when significant fault
The addition of generators within a distribution network is con- current contribution from the DG is present. It is thus dependent
sidered a problem, since it will cause higher fault levels and on DG size, DG fault current capabilities, levels of penetration and
sympathetic tripping due to power flow and fault current now grid fault levels.
becoming bi-directional [39–41]. Sympathetic tripping is a condi-
tion which could occur when a protection breaker trips for faults in Protection blinding
adjacent feeders [42,43]. Consider fault F1 in Figure 1. Protection blinding is a situation that arise when a DG provides
If the distance between PV3 and fault F1 is small with low fault enough voltage support during a fault and causes the fault current
impedance, breaker B3a might operate sympathetically due to the contribution from the grid to reduce below levels where a

34
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24
March 2018 RESEARCH REVIEW

Loss of coordination
Another case where DG influences distribution level protection
severely is with the coordination between auto-reclosers and fuses.
Reclosers are frequently used to clear transient faults, while fuses are
used to clear permanent faults. This is typically used on medium
voltage overhead lines where transient faults due to falling
branches or lightning occurs frequently. Reclosers are set with
two tripping curves; a fast and a slow curve as illustrated in
Figure 3a [47]. The fast curve is set just slower than what would
be required for cold load pick-up [47]. During fault F1 in Figure 3b,

RESEARCH REVIEW
the recloser will trip on the fast curve to allow any transient fault to
clear. After a dead time delay, usually around 1–3 s, the recloser will
close again. Due to the fault being upstream of any fuse, no fuse will
see any fault current and will not blow. If the fault is a permanent
fault, the recloser will trip on the slow curve to isolate the line. If the
fault was downstream of the fuse as with fault F2, the fuse will blow
to clear the fault after reclosing. This will isolate the fault and the
FIGURE 2 recloser will not trip on the slow curve, enabling safe power delivery
DG protection blinding. to the rest of the line. With the addition of PV1 between the recloser
and the fuse, during the same fault F2, the fuse will see more fault
protection relay will pick-up the overcurrent condition [41,44–46]. current due to the additional fault current contributed by PV1. The
The condition is illustrated with fault F1 in Figure 2. current seen by the recloser will be I (fault-grid) and the current seen
Without any contribution from PV1, the fault current in the by the fuse will be I (fault-total) as shown in Figure 3a. This will
cable due to fault F1 would be entirely contributed by the grid and cause, even for a transient fault, the fuse to blow before the fast curve
the entire fault current would be seen by breaker B11. Since the of the recloser could clear the fault and coordination between the
fault current would be more than the pick-up setting for breaker recloser and the fuse is lost [48,49].
B11, it would trip and isolate the fault. With the addition of PV1, it Suppose the recloser is able to trip before the fuse blows, the
is possible that during a fault, PV1 can provide enough voltage current supplied by PV1 could feed the fault and prevent it from
support so that the fault current contribution from the grid clearing during the off stage of the recloser [50]. Many of the faults
through B11 might be below the current pick-up level of breaker on MV overhead lines are transient faults and the addition of PV1
B11. Even if the current is above the pick-up level of breaker B11, could eliminate the ability to clear these faults. Additional pro-
the reduced fault contribution from the grid will result in delayed blems will also be introduced by PV1 during the auto-reclose stage
tripping times of B11. Since the protection settings are quite often of the recloser. If PV1 is still generating during the off state of the
chosen to be just below the maximum current ratings of the cables, recloser, there could be a difference in phase angle between the
delayed tripping times could cause damage to the cables. The grid voltage and the voltage from PV1 [51]. The recloser will
addition of DG has thus completely or partially blinded breaker require a method for synchronizing before reclosing. Keeping
B11 from seeing fault F1. Protection blinding, as with sympathetic PV1 connected while the recloser is open will result in the line
tripping, is highly dependent on grid fault levels, DG size and the being ungrounded since the DG is not grounded on the grid side as
technology of DG being used [45]. this cause problems with earth-fault protection.

FIGURE 3
(a) Recloser fuse coordination curves [47], (b) DG with recloser and fuses.

35
 RESEARCH REVIEW Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24
March 2018

Protection alternatives Suggestions have also been made to consider each feeder with all
DG disconnection of its sources and loads as a single differential zone and use
As explained above, DG introduces several protection challenges decentralized differential protection [59,60]. Since the zone would
in distribution systems. Due to the ease of scalability, DGs are be relatively big, it would be difficult to determine where in the
commonly connected to the low or medium voltage networks zone a fault has occurred and this would add on the time required
close to loads where overcurrent and earth-fault protection is used. to locate and rectify a fault. To resolve this, researchers [59]
With the fast response times which are available with inverter suggested that each zone, along with all of its loads and sources
based generators, it is possible to disconnect all DGs upon detec- be simulated for each type of fault at different locations. After a
tion of a fault within a few cycles. These faults can be detected with fault has occurred, the measurements form the relays can be
undervoltage and overcurrent protection schemes. This would compared to the simulation results to identify the fault location.
RESEARCH REVIEW

enable conventional protection to detect overcurrent faults and It would require prior knowledge of all of the loads and generators
operate as if no DGs are installed in the network [52]. Fault current within a network. DGs such as PV or wind turbines have dynamic
would flow as conventional in one direction from the substation to outputs, depending on weather conditions, time of day and time
the loads and to the fault. The instantaneous disconnection of DGs of year. It would not be possible to determine the network con-
would however cause a power swing at the substation. With low ditions for simulations. The dynamic nature of loads and munici-
levels of penetration, the power swing will be small and no pal expansions would also make this task challenging.
significant influence will be seen in the power system. If penetra- Distribution feeders are usually not dedicated to a single load
tion levels are high, the power swing will be large and could cause and might feed to several mini-substations where MV to low
voltage dips and flickering throughout the distribution network. voltage (LV) transformers are located. A differential scheme would
The sudden loss of generation could cause power system instability require a differential relay located at each end of any line section.
and could potentially lead to a collapse of the distribution net- This means that where a distribution feeder with N loads con-
work. With high levels of penetration, overloading of feeders nected to it would have conventionally had 1 digital protection
could occur if all DGs are suddenly lost [35]. Disconnection of device, it would now require 2 N digital differential relays for line
all DGs in the event of a fault is discriminative toward a multi- differential and N + 1 relays for differential zone protection. Many
source/multi-owned power system and could also lead to a system mini-substations are protected with mechanical relays and do not
collapse. have breakers with trip coils. Using differential protection would
require replacing of all of the mini-substation breakers. To be able
Differential protection to use comparative voltage protection as a back-up, each relay will
Differential protection is widely suggested as the preferred method require VTs to be installed. In microgrids where security of supply
of protecting distributed generation networks [53–58]. Differential is a key factor and investment cost is driven by a private sector,
protection is generally used on transmission lines, substation differential protection might be a viable solution, but it is not
busbars and large power transformers with great success. Since likely to be an attractive solution for a DG distribution grid.
no grading with other relays are required, differential protection is
much faster, which is preferred for expensive equipment. It does Real time settings update
however come at a cost and is more expensive than overcurrent The research discussed in Section ‘‘Protection risks’’ indicates that
protection. Differential protection requires communication varying fault levels is one of the biggest challenges DG power
between all relays connected to the unit which is being protected system protection has to deal with. If the fault levels in a network
[53]. Since the biggest concern in DG protection is the varying are known at any given time, overcurrent settings can be updated
fault currents, an ideal protection scheme would be one that is to compensate for the change in fault levels. It is also suggested
disconnected from this parameter. Several suggestions have been that the relays being used have directional functionality [61,62].
made to use differential protection in DG protection since it does Renewable energy sources are highly dependent on weather con-
not use fault levels for protection calculations [54,55]. Due to the ditions which make their power output availability at any time
typical structure of distribution networks with relatively short dynamic. Research suggests that if the available power and result-
cables (typically less than 10 km) time synchronized measure- ing fault conditions of a network is known for any given moment,
ments of the current vectors are not required, because the signal it would be possible to update relay overcurrent setting to com-
transmission time delay is insignificant over such small distances pensate or the additional fault current [63]. A possible solution
[56]. Differential protection requires communication between all would be to calculate the fault levels offline for all possible network
relays connected to a common node/bus/line which would be topologies and stored in a database [64]. Based on the current
expensive to implement in a conventional distribution system network topology, the settings on all relays can be updated using a
[57]. It also requires digital relay on all points of generation or wireless or fiber communications network to all of the protection
loads connected to a node/bus/line to summate all of the currents devices on the network [65,66]. During operation, the actual
to zero. In the event of relay failure, comparative voltage protec- network values are compared to the updated settings to determine
tion is suggested as a back-up. Comparative voltage protection the operating time for each breaker to maintain coordination with
measures and compares the rms voltage at each relay. For a voltage other breakers [58,67,68]. This would require prior knowledge of
sag less than 70%, the relay with the lowest voltage will trip [56]. all possible network topologies. Due to the fast growing trend in
Both of these schemes require a communications link and a DG it is highly unlikely that all possible scenarios can be catered
communication failure event will leave both the main and for. The available power from each DG will need to be communi-
back-up schemes unable to protect the system. cated to the decision making point. Reclosers are often used on MV

36
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24
March 2018 RESEARCH REVIEW

overhead lines and coordinated with fuses on laterals. These fuses has a single point of failure. Communications failure or central
are not intelligent devices and would need to be replaced by control unit failure will result in complete loss of protection.
intelligent electronic devices (IEDs). Fuses are used to protect
single MV–LV transformers sized around 50–315 kVA. Replacing PV inverters
fuses with IEDs could double the installation cost. Installing IEDs PV sources are by nature DC sources. In order to connect them to the
at each of these locations cannot be justified by the income AC grid, the DC voltage is converted to AC voltage by means of
generated by the electricity sold to the customers who are supplied power electronic inverters. Unlike turbine generators, there are no
by these transformers. This method will require a communications large rotating parts with stored inertia. Turbine generators are able
network in the MV grid along with replacement of all protection to source large amounts of fault current during fault conditions
equipment. The real time network topology information will because of the energy stored in their rotating parts. PV inverters on

RESEARCH REVIEW
prove inaccurate when DGs are installed on a LV line in conjunc- the other hand, do not have this capacity [70]. Impact studies have
tion with fluctuating loads. been done on several PV inverters from different manufacturers to
determine the level of current contribution from these inverters
during system faults [71–73]. During these studies, several faults
Phase jump comparison
were simulated and the short circuit currents recorded. The results
The ideal protection scheme for highly penetrated DG networks
indicated that most PV inverters provided sub-transient fault cur-
need to be disconnected from fault levels. Recommendations have
rents from 100% to 210% of the rated current during the first cycle
been made to replace coordinated timed overcurrent protection
of the fault [74]. The sub-transient current reduced to the steady
with relays that use current phase jump comparison to detect
state fault current of around 120% nominal within less than 5 cycles
faults. Based on current system loading and frequency, it is possi-
[71–73]. With such low fault currents, overcurrent protection will
ble to predict the instantaneous value of a future current sample.
not be a viable option for protection. Current supervised under-
When faults occur, the impedance seen from the relay change to
voltage protection, frequency protection, differential protection
include the new fault impedance. Due to the change in imped-
and voltage unbalance monitoring is typically used to detect faults
ance, the magnitude and phase angle of the current vector will
in systems where only PV sources are present [68,75–78].
experience sudden changes. At each end on a line, an IED will
As mentioned in Section ‘‘Protection alternatives’’, it is undesir-
compare the magnitude and direction of a current sample to a
able to disconnect DGs for any faulted event on the surrounding
predicted value. If an abrupt change in the current direction is
power system. Present grid codes [34–37,79] require DGs to dis-
detected at any one of the nodes, the relay will trip and send a
connect for severe surrounding faults. When faults on the network
permissive trip signal to the relay on the other end of the line to
occur, to ensure safe operation, the faulted part of the network
isolate the line from both sides [39]. This scheme is a modified
where the maintenance personnel will work should not have any
differential scheme which is aimed at reducing the communica-
risk of being energized by DGs. For this reason, DGs are also
tion requirements of conventional differential schemes. It has the
required to stay disconnected from the grid if islanding occurs.
same drawbacks as differential protection and will also require two
This means disconnecting from the grid if the substation feeder, or
IEDs at each spur on a line which is currently not available.
any other breaker connecting the DG to the grid, trips. The
statement of severe surrounding faults needs to be quantified
Central protection unit and is done by the following requirements as listed in the South
As explained in Section ‘‘Protection risks’’, conventional time African Grid Code Requirements for Renewable Power Plants [36].
graded overcurrent coordination is not possible if DGs are inte- DGs with a nominal rating of less than 100 kVA should stay
grated into the network. If however, the system topology is known connected to the grid according to the frequency requirements
at any given time, it would be possible to determine coordinated shown in Figure 4 [36]. In addition to this, requirements for DGs to
tripping time for all relays in the network. In Section ‘‘Real time stay connected to the grid during voltage deviations are indicated
settings update’’ proposals were discussed which suggested calcu- in Table 1 [36]. Control requirements for active power curtailment
lation of relay tripping times based on the network topology and during over frequency conditions and reactive power support
known fault levels of all DGs. A similar approach would be to
measure the system quantities at any given time. If several mea-
surement devices are placed at all of the breaker points on a
network, real time data can be collected and transmitted to a
central location such as the distribution substation. When a fault
occurs, a central control unit can then calculate the faulted loca-
tion based on comparative measurements throughout the network
and trip the appropriate breakers to isolate the fault [69]. With the
direction of current flow at each node known, it is easy to deter-
mine which section is accepting overcurrent form all directions.
Sending this information to a central point will make comparison
between current direction and sizes simple. Measurement devices,
remote tripping capability and communications will be required at
each spur on a distribution feeder. With the protection of the FIGURE 4
whole system becoming centralized to a single device, this system Minimum frequency operating range for DG [36].

37
 RESEARCH REVIEW Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24
March 2018

TABLE 1 PowerFactory, PSCAD or similar software. The simulations should

Maximum disconnection times for DG less than 100 kW [36]. take all of the system parameters into account. The parameters
Voltage range (at POC) Trip time (s) such as the external grid (with its characteristics), distributed
energy resources (with its unique characteristics), power system
V < 50% 0.2
50%  V < 85% 2 components such as power transformers, earthing devices, cables
85%  V < 110% Continious operation and overhead lines, distributed loads, power system loading capac-
110%  V < 120% 2 ity and protection devices. Simulation measurements should
120%  V 0.16 include analysis through sequence components as this is a key
factor of power system fault studies [85].
When doing fault calculations using sequence components,
RESEARCH REVIEW

during voltage sags are also given by the grid codes to support some basic assumptions are made to simplify calculations. All
power system stability [36]. generated voltages are assumed equal in magnitude and in phase
Most common PV based DG plants and micro wind turbines and no loading is considered between sources. All shunt reactance
used for power plants less than 100 kW generate power at LV such as load and magnetizing reactance is also neglected [86–88].
levels. Power is either fed back into the grid through the utility This method has proven reliable for fault calculations for many
MV–LV transformer or through a dedicated transformer for larger years. If the fault current contributions from DGs are in the same
power plants [62]. In South-Africa, as in many other distribution order as load current, it might well also be ignored.
systems, a single earth point is required on the distribution net- For coordination between reclosers and fuses as described in
work to enable earth-fault protection to pick-up earth-faults. By Section ‘‘Protection risks’’ the same argument might hold valid. It
using a neutral earthing system, the fault current during asym- needs however to be validated by power system simulations. If the
metrical earth-faults is limited and cable insulation is protected additional fault current contributed by DGs as seen by the fuse is
[80]. By creating a single earth point at the substation, all zero not significantly greater than the fault current seen by the recloser,
sequence current will flow between the substation and the fault coordination will still hold between the fast recloser curve and the
location. If mini-substation transformers or DG feed-in transfor- fuse.
mers are earthed, zero sequence current will be distributed to all of Most modern overcurrent relays currently being used for over-
the possible earth paths and make earth-fault detection difficult current protection already have negative sequence overcurrent
[81]. For this reason, during phase to ground faults, no zero protection available [89,90]. Using negative sequence overcurrent
sequence current should be supplied by DGs to enable conven- protection would be a simple and inexpensive, yet effective
tional earth-fault protection to remain stable. method of protecting DG power systems. Symmetrical three phase
As mentioned above, grid codes also provide strict requirements faults will unfortunately not be protected by using this method.
for low voltage reactive power support and active power curtail- For distribution systems where DG penetration levels are increas-
ment. Along with this, it also states that all renewable power plants ing and upgrading of all protection equipment at once is not a
with a nominal rating above 4.6 kVA should deliver balance three possible option, this method could increase the reliability and
phase power. Power quality is to be assessed at the POC terminals security of the grid. By examining these challenges with power
with regards to unbalanced currents and voltages. Modern control system simulations, it can be established whether the addition of
techniques have been recommended and simulation models built DG causes a complete loss of protection, or whether it only delays
of various inverters to model and prove the normal and fault and discoordinates conventional protection. This information will
current contributions from grid-tied inverters. Control techniques play a critical role in protection re-evaluation.
have been developed to limit the negative sequence current con-
tributed during asymmetrical fault conditions, for symmetrical Conclusion
and asymmetrical faults [82], [83]. This type of output control is This paper has evaluated the protection challenges related to the
not possible with conventional rotating generators. PV inverters introduction of DG into MV distribution power systems. The loss
can thus be characterized as only positive sequence sources and of coordination between conventional overcurrent relays is the
will not facilitate zero or negative sequence current during asym- most commonly affected area. Reclosers are frequently used to
metrical faults. clear transient faults, while fuses are used to clear permanent
faults. Loss of coordination between reclosers and fuses are due to
Future research opportunities additional fault current being injected into the power system
The challenges listed in Section ‘‘Protection risks’’ are mostly during faults. Various methods of alternative protection methods
aimed at generic distributed energy resources, which include wind have been suggested which were discussed and critically evalu-
turbines with rotating machines. Many of the available research do ated. A common problem in all methods are the requirement for
not take into account the low levels of fault current contributed by communication networks, cost of implementation and the
inverter based DGs such as PV generators. For insignificant fault inability to protect the power system when communication
contributions, conventional overcurrent and earth-fault protec- between relays are lost.
tion will still be able to protect a DG power system as long as a PV sources are by nature DC sources. In order to connect them to
connection to the grid is always present and islanding is not the AC grid, the DC voltage is converted to AC voltage by means of
allowed [84]. The only method of validating and quantifying power electronic inverters. Impact studies have been done on
the risks listed in Section ‘‘Protection risks’’ is through power several PV inverters from different manufacturers. The results
system simulations with software such as DIgSILENT indicated that most PV inverters provided fault currents from

38
Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24
March 2018 RESEARCH REVIEW

100% to 210% of the rated current. Since the most common small [30] T. Boutsika, S. Papathanassiou, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 78 (7) (2008) 1181–1191.
[31] J. Keller, B. Kroposki, Understanding Fault Characteristics of Inverter-Based
scale renewable energy sources are inverted based, the effect of
Distributed Energy Resources, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Tech. Rep.
additional fault current might not pose such a serious problem as NREL/TP-550-46698, 2010.
inverters are incapable of providing large fault currents. Due to [32] O. Palizban, K. Kauhaniemi, J.M. Guerrero, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 36 (2014)
single point earthing systems on distribution grids, combined with 440–451.
[33] S. Mirsaeidi, D.M. Said, M.W. Mustafa, M.H. Habibuddin, K. Ghaffari, Renew.
active current control of inverters, inverters can limit fault current Sustain. Energy Rev. 37 (2014) 834–839.
to only positive sequence current. It is thus proposed that power [34] IEEE Std 1547-2003, 2003, 1–28.
system load flow and fault studies be carried out to quantify the [35] E. Troester, 2nd International Workshop on Concentrating Photovoltaic Power
Plants: Optical Design, Production, Grid Connection, Darmstadt, 2009.
severity which DG will have on conventional distribution system
[36] NERSA, Grid Connection Code for Renewable Power Plants (RPPs) Connected to
protection. It is also proposed that negative and zero sequence

RESEARCH REVIEW
the Electricity Transmission System (TS) or the Distribution System (DS) in South
overcurrent protection be used as an alternative to increase the Africa, RSA Grid Code Secretariat, 2014 (Online). Available at: http://www.nersa.
protection reliability in conventional distributions systems in the org.za/Admin/Document/Editor/file/Electricity/TechnicalStandards/South%
20African%20Grid%20Code%20Requirements%20for%20Renewable%20Power
presence of DG.
%20Plants%20-%20Version%202%208.pdf (accessed 14.07.16).
[37] S. Darie, Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Orlando, FL,
References (2012), pp. 1–6.
[1] M. Imamura, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 35 (1994) 359–374. [38] A. Cabrera-Tobar, E. Bullich-Massagué, M. Aragüés-Peñalba, O. Gomis-Bellmunt,
[2] K.L. Anaya, M.G. Pollitt, Energy Policy 85 (2015) 475–486. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62 (2016) 971–987.
[3] J.C. Hernández, K. De La Cruz, B. Ogayar, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 89 (2012) 85–99. [39] N. El Halabi, M. Garcı́a-Gracia, J. Borroy, J. Villa, Appl. Energy 88 (12) (2011) 4563–
[4] M. Breytenbach, Emperors Palace Launches Rooftop Solar PV Plant, Engineering 4569.
News, 2016 (Online). Available at: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/ [40] M. Baran, H. Hooshyar, Z. Shen, A. Huang, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 3 (2) (2012)
emperors-palace-launches-rooftop-solar-pv-plant (accessed 14.07.16). 1039–1046.
[5] T. Niemz, Renewable Energy and the Net Feed-in Tariff Concept, CSIR, Pretoria, [41] K. Jennett, F. Coffele, C. Booth, 11th International Conference on Developments
2015 (Online). Available at: http://www.erln.org.za/images/jevents/ in Power Systems Protection, Birmingham, UK, (2012), pp. 1–6.
55c3227b1c40d5.05990472.pdf. [42] K. Jennett, A. Roscoe, C. Booth, F. Coffele, IET Gen. Transm. Distrib. 9 (4) (2015)
[6] J. Hill, Renewable Energy is More Competitive Than Ever With Improved LCOE, 379–385.
Clean Technica, 2016 (Online). Available at: http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/ [43] V. Papaspiliotopoulos, V. Kleftakis, P. Kotsampopoulos, G. Korres, N.
04/renewable-energy-competitive-ever-improved-lcoe-make (accessed 14.07.16). Hatziargyriou, MedPower (2014) 66.
[7] T. Adefarati, R.C. Bansal, IET-Renew. Power Gen. 10 (7) (2016) 873–884. [44] J.C. Hernandez, J. De La Cruz, P.G. Vidal, B. Ogayar, Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst.
[8] F. Sanchez-Sutil, J.C. Hernandez, C. Tobajas, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 122 (2015) 23 (5) (2013) 669–688.
104–118. [45] J.C. Hernandez, F. Sanchez Sutil, P.G. Vidal, Turkish J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 24
[9] N. Phuangpornpitak, S. Tia, Energy Proc. 34 (2013) 282–290. (4) (2016) 3123–3143.
[10] R. Shah, N. Mithulananthan, R.C. Bansal, V.K. Ramachandaramurthy, Renew. [46] F. Coffele, A. Dysko, C. Booth, G. Burt, IET Gen. Transm. Distrib. 6 (12) (2012)
Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 1423–1436. 1218–1224.
[11] O. Garcia, J.C. Hernandez, F. Jurado, Adv. Electr. Comput. Eng. 12 (4) (2012) [47] M. Bollen, Integration of Distributed Generation in the Power System, Wiley,
63–70. Hoboken, NJ, 2011.
[12] J.C. Hernández, P.G. Vidal, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 24 (1) (2009) 274–282. [48] M.R. Miveh, M. Gandomkar, S. Mirsaeidi, M.R. Gharibdoost, in: Proceedings of
[13] B. Chatt, L. Dickerman, T. Myers, A Practical Adaptive Protection System 17th Conference on Electrical Power Distribution Networks, Tehran, (2012), pp.
Architecture for Distributed Generation, DNV KEMA, 2013 (Online). Available at: 1–5.
http://rtpis.org/psc13/files/PSC2013_final_1355946333.pdf. [49] A. Sarabia, Impact of Distributed Generation on Distribution System, (Masters
[14] M.J. Slabbert, S.J. van Zyl, R. Naidoo, R.C. Bansal, Electr. Power Comp. Syst. 44 (2) dissertation), Dept. Energy and Environment, Aalborg University, 2011.
(2016) 206–218. [50] H.C. Seo, Energies 10 (7) (2017) 1004.
[15] A. Keyhani, Design of Smart Power Grid Renewable Energy Systems, Wiley, [51] D. Ishchenko, A. Oudalov, J. Stoupis, S. Mohagheghi, IEEE PES General Meetingj
Hoboken, NJ, 2016. Conference & Exposition, MD, USA, 2014.
[16] H. Alatrash, R.A. Amarin, C. Lam, IEEE Green Technologies Conference, Tulsa, [52] G.G. Lammert, T. He, M. Schmidt, P. Schegner, M. Braun, Power Systems
OK, (2012), pp. 1–6. Computation Conference, Wroclaw, Poland, 2014.
[17] SMA, PV Grid Integration, 2015 (Online). Available at: http://files.sma.de/dl/ [53] H. Gao, Q. Pang, Y. An, 11th IET International Conference on Developments in
10040/PV-Netzint-AEN123016w.pdf (accessed 17.04.15). Power Systems Protection, Birmingham, UK, (2012), pp. 1–5.
[18] M.G. Molina, E.C. dos Santos, M. Pacas, Transmission and Distribution [54] D.E. Olivares, A. Mehrizi-Sani, A.H. Etemadi, C.A. Cañizares, R. Iravani, M.
Conference and Exposition: Latin America, Sao Paulo, (2010), pp. 163–170. Kazerani, A.H. Hajimiragha, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, M. Saeedifard, R. Palma-Behnke,
[19] J. von Appen, T. Kneiske, M. Braun, 22nd International Conference and G.A. Jimenez-Estevez, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 5 (4) (2014) 1905–1919.
Exhibition on Electricity Distribution, Stockholm, Sweden, (2013), pp. 1–4. [55] S. Mirsaeidi, D. Mat Said, M. Wazir Mustafa, M. Hafiz Habibuddin, K. Ghaffari,
[20] M. Kleinberg, J. Harrison, N. Mirhosseini, Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37 (2014) 834–839.
Conference, Washington, DC, (2014), pp. 1–5. [56] E. Sortomme, S. Venkata, J. Mitra, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 25 (4) (2010) 2789–
[21] E. Demirok, D. Sera, R. Teodorescu, P. Rodriguez, U. Borup, IEEE Energy 2796.
Conversion Congress and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, (2010), pp. 710–717. [57] T. Ustun, R. Khan, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 6 (5) (2015) 2493–2500.
[22] J. Yan, Y. Zhai, P. Wijayatunga, A.M. Mohamed, P.E. Campana, Appl. Energy 201 [58] R. Li, Y. Lu, Z. Zhang, China International Conference on Electricity Distribution,
(2017) 241–244. Shenzen, (2014), pp. 1451–1455.
[23] F. Lamberti, V. Calderaro, V. Galdi, G. Graditi, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 143 (2017) [59] Y.Y. Ates, M. Uzunoglu, A. Karakas, A.R. Boynuegri, A. Nadar, B. Dag, J. Clean.
206–214. Prod. 112 (Part 4) (2016) 2697–2705.
[24] S. Kabir, M. Nadarajah, R.C. Bansal, IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and [60] GE Grid Solutions, Micom Alstom P741 Numerical Busbar Protection, GE Grid
Exposition Asia, Melbourne, (2013), pp. 468–473. Solutions, 2013 (Online). Available at: http://www.gegridsolutions.com/
[25] A. Samadi, R. Eriksson, L. Soder, B. Rawn, J. Boemer, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 29 (3) alstomenergy/grid/TechnicalManuals/P74x/P74x_EN_M_H54.pdf (accessed
(2014) 1454–1464. 14.07.16).
[26] Alstom Grid, Network Protection and Automation Guide, 2011. [61] S. Gopalan, V. Sreeram, H. Iu, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32 (2014) 222–228.
[27] M. Ding, Z. Xu, W. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Song, D. Chen, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. [62] M. Nthontho, S. Chowdhury, S. Winberg, S. Chowdhury, 11th IET International
53 (2016) 639–652. Conference on Developments in Power Systems Protection, Birmingham, UK,
[28] S. Kouro, J.I. Leon, D. Vinnikov, L.G. Franquelo, IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 9 (1) (2012), pp. 1–6.
(2015) 47–61. [63] P. Maiola, J. Rolim, 11th IET International Conference on Developments in Power
[29] P. Manditereza, R.C. Bansal, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58 (2016) 1457–1465. Systems Protection, Birmingham, UK, (2012), pp. 1–6.

39
 RESEARCH REVIEW Renewable Energy Focus
Volume 24
March 2018

[64] N. Tummasit, S. Premrudeepreechacharn, N. Tantichayakorn, IEEE Innovative [78] N. Eghtedarpour, E. Farjah, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 5 (3) (2014) 1494–1505.
Smart Grid Technologies, Bangkok, (2015), pp. 1–6. [79] BDEW Berlin, Technische richtlinie erzeugungsanlagen am mittelspannungsnetz,
[65] M.J. Slabbert, R. Naidoo, R.C. Bansal, SAIEE Smart Grid Conference, Federal Association for the Management of Energy and Water, Berlin, 2008
Johannesburg, South Africa, Track 3, (2016), pp. 1–5. (Online). Available at: https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/
[66] H. Lin, J.M. Guerrero, C. Jia, Z.H. Tan, J.C. Vasquez, C. Liu, 42nd Annual A2A0475F2FAE8F44C12578300047C92/$file/
Conference of the Industrial Electronics Society, 2016, 4042–4047. BDEW_RL_EA-am-MS-Netz_Juni_2008_end.pdf (accessed 14.07.16).
[67] P. Mahat, Z. Chen, B. Bak-Jensen, C. Bak, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2 (3) (2011) 428–437. [80] C. Preve, Protection of Electrical Networks, London, 2006.
[68] F. Katiraei, C. Sun, B. Enayati, IEEE Power Energy Mag. 13 (2) (2015) 43–49. [81] S. van Zyl, Energize (2009) 28–30.
[69] H.H. Zeineldin, H.M. Sharaf, D.K. Ibrahim, E.E. El-Zahab, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 6 [82] M. El Moursi, J. Kirtley, W. Xiao, IET Gen. Transm. Distrib. 7 (9) (2013)
(1) (2015) 115–123. 1027–1036.
[70] M. Laughton, D. Warne, Electrical Engineer’s Reference Book, 16th ed., Newnes, [83] E. Muljadi, M. Singh, V. Gevorgian, R. Bravo, Dynamic Model Validation of PV
Oxford, England, 2003. Inverters Under Short-Circuit Conditions, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
RESEARCH REVIEW

[71] F. Katiraei, J. Holbach, T. Chang, Dynamic Model Validation of PV Inverters Under 2013 (Online). Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57341.pdf
Short-circuit Conditions, Quanta Technology, 2012 (Online). Available at: http:// (accessed 14.07.16).
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57341.pdf (accessed 14.07.16). [84] Y. Baghzouz, in: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference
[72] U.S. Department of Energy, Understanding Fault Characteristics of Inverter-Based on System Sciences, 2005, p. 66b.
Distributed Energy Resources, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010 [85] A.F. Zobaa, R.C. Bansal (Eds.), Handbook of Renewable Energy Technology, World
Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46698.pdf (accessed 14.07.16). Scientific Publishers, Singapore, 2011.
[73] F. Kateraei, J. Holbach, T. Chang, Investigation of Solar PV Inverters Current [86] J. Blackburn, F. Anthony, Symmetrical Components for Power Systems
Contributions During Faults on Distribution and Transmission Systems Engineering, CRC Press, 2012.
Interruption Capacity, Quanta Technology, 2012 (Online). Available: http:// [87] S. Marx, 28th Annual Hands on Relay School, Pullman, 2011 (Online). Available
quanta-technology.com/sites/default/files/doc-files/Solar%20PV%20Inverter% at: https://www.eiseverywhere.com/file_uploads/
20formatted.pdf (accessed 14.07.16). a4f0ea9ba5ebe8baf31cba17ff378633_SymmetricalComponents_2013.pdf
[74] U.S. Department of Energy, PSCAD Modules Representing PV Generator, National (accessed 14.07.16).
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013 (Online). Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/ [88] A. Amberg, A. Rangel, Tutorial on Symmetrical Components, Schweitzer
docs/fy13osti/58189.pdf (accessed 14.07.16). Engineering Laboratories, 2015 (Online). Available at: https://selinc.com/api/
[75] D. Motter, J.C. Vieira, D.V. Coury, IET Gen. Transm. Distrib. 9 (8) (2015) 708–718. download/100688 (accessed 17.04.15).
[76] B. Liu, X. Ni, G. Yan, B. Li, K. Jia, IEEE Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering [89] GE Grid solutions, 350 Feeder Protection System, GE Digital Energy, 2015
Conference, 2016, 454–457. (Online). Available at: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/app/ViewFiles.aspx?
[77] O.N. Faqhruldin, E.F. El-Saadany, H.H. Zeineldin, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 5 (4) prod=350&type=1 (accessed 14.07.16).
(2014) 1985–1992. [90] SEL, SEL-751 Feeder Protection Relay, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, 2016.

40