Verification of Protective Device Coordination in Distribution Systems

with Photovoltaic Generation

Yingying Tang, Raja Ayyanar
School of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287-5706
USA

Abstract — In this paper, an automated approach is presented paper, effects of PV on fuse-fuse coordination and fuse-
to verify the impact of different levels of photovoltaic (PV) recloser coordination are studied on an actual feeder in
penetration on the protective device coordination in distribution
systems. The approach is implemented on a detailed feeder Arizona. The radial feeder is nearly 10 miles long, with close
modeled in OpenDSS. The feeder has been modeled using to a thousand transformers serving roughly three thousand
extensive geographic information system (GIS) data, with loads, customers. There are over two thousand segments and 39
PV output and substation voltage modeled using data from types of overhead lines and underground cables on the
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and data acquisition primary side. The protective devices installed in the feeder
systems (DAS), as discussed in [1-2]. Starting from the feeder
topology, an adjacency matrix is generated to find the include one substation relay, one main-line recloser and close
coordinated protective devices during each possible fault in the to 200 lateral fuses. The feeder has been modeled in OpenDSS
feeder. The time-current curves (TCC) are created based on the as shown in Figure 1 [1-2], using extensive GIS data, with
types and ratings of the protective devices installed in the feeder loads and substation voltage modeled using data from AMI
to help classify whether coordination holds or not, under and DAS. Because of the complexity of the feeder topology,
increasing penetration levels and varying locations of the PV
system. The fuse-fuse coordination and fuse-recloser automated ways of checking coordination of fuses and
coordination during all types of possible faults are verified in this reclosers under different fault conditions need to be
study. The approach implemented can also be utilized in other developed. Also, in order to compare the operation time of the
feeders to help verify the protective device coordination with and protective devices for given fault current values, TCC
without PV penetration. equations need to be defined based on the types and ratings of
Index Terms — Distribution system, protective device the protective devices. The overall procedure to verify the
coordination, PV penetration, fuse-fuse coordination, fuse-
recloser coordination. protective device coordination with PV is illustrated in the
following sections.

I. INTRODUCTION
Conventional distribution systems are usually designed as
radial systems with a single source feeding the downstream
system. The protective devices including reclosers and fuses
are therefore installed based on the radial structure.
With PV connected to the system, especially at high
penetration levels, it is possible that the coordination among
the protective devices may not hold due to the fault
contribution from PV generators. Issues related to
coordination problems have been discussed in the literature. In
[3-4], the possible loss of fuse-fuse coordination and fuse-
recloser coordination under the impact of distributed
generation (DG) is discussed. In order to mitigate the impact
of DG on protection coordination, [5] developed a
classification technique for recloser-fuse coordination to find
the best DG location with proper recloser settings, [6]
proposed a new control strategy to limit the DG output current
during faults, and [7] utilized the grounding reactance to
reduce the residual fault current from DG.
Since the impacts of distributed PV on the protective device
coordination are influenced by the sizes and the placements of
PV as well as the types and locations of faults, the
coordination needs to be verified with varying PV penetration Figure 1 Feeder diagram with fuses (green circles) and recloser (red
levels and different locations during all possible faults. In this circle) shown

978-1-4799-4398-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 2100

 II. MAPPING THE PROTECTIVE DEVICES FOR ALL FAULTS and downstream fuses, as well as the recloser and its
downstream coordinated fuses.
To assess the fuse-fuse coordination, it is necessary to
locate the correspondingly coordinated fuses under each fault
condition. Also, the downstream fuses should be found for the III. FUSE-FUSE COORDINATION VERIFICATION
investigation of fuse-recloser coordination. During the initial
In a part of a radial system with a proper fuse-fuse
modeling of the feeder, the feeder topology is constructed by a
coordination, when a fault occurs downstream of the two
set of nodes, sections and the indices of the From Node and To
fuses, the downstream fuse should operate faster than its
Node for each section [1]. Hence, an adjacency matrix can be
upstream fuse. When PV systems are inserted into the
constructed to store information about which feeder nodes are
distribution system, especially at high penetration levels, fault
adjacent to the other feeder nodes, starting from the substation
currents flowing through the fuses can increase or change
node downstream to the ends of all the sections in the feeder.
directions, necessitating the consideration of two possible
Figure 2 illustrates the procedure of constructing the
scenarios.
adjacency matrix, creating a node list of all the nodes
When a PV system is inserted upstream of the two
upstream of each feeder node, and building a section list of the
originally coordinated fuses, as shown in Figure 3, the
accumulated sections upstream of each feeder node.
maximum and minimum fault currents flowing through both
Fuse 1 and Fuse 2 under the indicated fault would increase,
because of the additional current contribution from the
upstream PV system [4]. Since the only change in the fault
current is the range, as long as the increased fault current does
not exceed the ratings specified in the fuse curves, the two
fuses would continue to maintain proper coordination.

Figure 3 Fuse coordination diagram with PV upstream of fuses

When a PV system is inserted downstream of the two

originally coordinated fuses, as shown in Figure 4, during
Fault 1 which is downstream of the two fuses, the fault current
would flow through both Fuse 1 and Fuse 2; during Fault 2
which is upstream of Fuse 2 and downstream of Fuse 1, the
fault current from the AC source (substation) flows through
Fuse 1, and the fault contribution from the PV flows through
Fuse 2. For proper fuse coordination, only the faulted sections
should be cleared to ensure the minimum load disruption.
Hence, for Fault 1, Fuse 2 is expected to operate faster than
Fuse 1, and for Fault 2, Fuse 2 should not operate and Fuse 1
alone should isolate the fault. Whether or not Fuse 2 operates
for Fault 2 depends on the PV penetration level, and the PV
fault current magnitude and duration.

Figure 2 Flow chart of creating the adjacency matrix, node list and
section list for all the feeder nodes and sections

Finally, using the fuse and recloser sections created during

the modeling of the feeder [1] and the adjacency matrix newly
created, it is convenient to find all the coordinated upstream
Figure 4 Fuse coordination diagram with PV downstream of fuses

978-1-4799-4398-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 2101

 Before investigating the scenarios of PV system impact, scale PV system output is varied from 500 kW to 5000 kW in
since OpenDSS does not have a fuse library, TCC equations steps of 100 kW for each fault case with each PV location.
of the protective devices need to be built first to estimate the The feeder load in all the cases is kept fixed at 3000 kW total.
trip time under given fault current values. In each fault case, the fault currents seen by the fuses
Fuses have an inverse current-time characteristic which can protecting the faulted nodes are recorded and analyzed.
be plotted as specific log-log curves as given in fuse Results show that the large-scale PV with all the assigned
datasheets. For protection coordination analysis these curves locations and outputs are not able to cause fuse
can be approximated by second order polynomial equations miscoordination in this feeder.
[8], as shown in (1). The modeled feeder has a large number of smaller,
residential PV systems located at the transformer secondary
log(t) = p1(log(I ))2 + p2 log(I ) + p3 (1)
sides. Fuse-fuse coordination may also be affected by these
where, downstream PV systems during upstream faults if the fault
t: fuse operating time contribution from the downstream PV systems opens the
I: fault current flowing through the fuse downstream fuses faster than the trip of upstream fuses (while
p1, p2, p3: fuse constants determined using least square the fault should be cleared by upstream fuses), as explained in
method [4]. However, the PV fault contribution seen by the fuses is
There are 22 types of fuses installed in the feeder (e.g., 15 significantly reduced because of the transformer turns-ratio,
K, 65 K, 30 T). In order to determine the fuse constants p1, p2 and hence, the downstream PV will not trip the fuses at the
and p3 for each type of the fuse, the least square method has primary side during upstream faults.
been used. The TCC of each fuse type plotted in CYMTCC Therefore, fuse-fuse coordination is not affected after the
[9] library have been used in this study. For each fuse TCC, installation of PV system in this feeder as seen from
several points with corresponding current values and operation simulation results.
time values are chosen and entered into (1), and the least
square method is applied to obtain the corresponding values of IV. FUSE-RECLOSER COORDINATION
p1, p2 and p3. Figure 5 shows the defined log-log curve using
(1) for fuse type 65 K, along with the points chosen from TCC Under a proper fuse-recloser coordination using a fuse-
of fuse type 65 K in CYMTCC library. saving scheme, when a fault occurs downstream of the fuse,
the recloser would operate based on its fast TCC one or more
times giving a chance for the fault to clear. If the fault is
Curve fitting for fuse 65 K
permanent, the fuse is supposed to clear the fault after the fast
operations of the recloser. Also, the slow operation of the
Operating tim e (sec)

recloser serves as a back-up if the fuse fails to open and clear

10
the fault.
With the insertion of a PV system, the fault currents seen by
5
the fuses and reclosers change and the fuse-recloser
coordination may no longer hold. As seen from Figure 6, with
a PV system added, the current through the recloser is
0 decreased and the current seen by the fuse is increased. The
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 magnitudes of the current changes are expressed respectively
Current (A) as Irecloser_change and Ifuse_change, in (2) and (3) respectively. Iinv is
Figure 5 Characteristics of fuse type 65 K using least square method the fault current contribution from the PV system in Figure 6,
(Red circles: from CYMTCC K65 library; Blue solid line: from least- and it is defined as 1.5 p.u. of the PV inverter rating in the
square based curve fitting with p1=1.21, p2=-9.26, p3=16) fault simulations in this work. Therefore, the effect of the PV
systems is to make the fuse operate faster compared to the
With the TCC of all fuse types obtained, fuse-fuse base case (no PV) and the recloser to operate slower compared
coordination under different PV scenarios can be investigated. to the base case. With this change, if the operation of the fuse
To verify the fuse-fuse coordination with PV system upstream happens to be faster than that of the recloser, the fuse-recloser
of fuses, a large-scale, three-phase PV system is considered in coordination will be lost for the fuse-saving strategy.
the OpenDSS model iteratively at eight different locations on Therefore, the investigation of fuse-recloser coordination
the feeder main line ranging from the feeder head to the feeder under the impact of PV systems is necessary. Figure 7 shows a
end. For each of the PV locations, all the possible single- flowchart of the procedure to investigate the fuse-recloser
phase, two-phase and three-phase faults (totally up to 2000 coordination in this work.
fault cases) are applied respectively on the nodes protected by
fuses downstream of the large-scale PV system. The large-

978-1-4799-4398-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 2102

 applied to obtain the corresponding values of A and B. Figure
8 shows the defined time-current curve using (4) for ground
recloser slow mode, along with the points obtained from the
corresponding curve in CYMTCC library.

 
  (4)
 A 
t ( I ) = TD ⋅  P
+ B
 I  
Figure 6 Downstream fault in an equivalent distribution system with   I  −1
 
a PV system added   pickup  

where,
I in v Z fee d e r 2 (2)
I re c lo se r_ c h a n g e = − t: recloser operating time
Z su b sta tio n + Z fe e d e r1 + Z fe e d e r 2 I: fault current flowing through the recloser
I in v ( Z fee d er 1 + Z su b sta tio n ) (3) TD: time dial setting
I fu se_ c h a n g e =
Z s u b s ta tio n + Z fe e d e r1 + Z fe ed e r 2 Ipickup: relay trip current setting
A,B and P: recloser curve parameters
Before the fuse-recloser coordination studies, the recloser
Curve fitting for ground-recloser slow curve
TCC is defined in a similar way as the definition of the fuse 15
TCC. The fast and slow curve numbers and trip ratings of the

Operating time (sec)

ground-recloser and phase-recloser have been obtained during
10
the initial modeling of the feeder. Since the feeder has been
using the fuse-clearing scheme, the time-dial (TD) values for
the recloser curves correspond to this scheme. in order to 5
investigate the fuse-recloser coordination under fuse-saving
scheme, the TD values are adjusted such that without the PV
0
systems, the recloser operates in fast mode before the 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Current (A)
downstream fuse begins to melt, while the slow mode of the
recloser provides back up to the fuses. Figure 8 Characteristics of ground recloser slow curve using least
Recloser has an inverse current-time characteristic that can square method (Red circle: from CYMTCC recloser library; Blue
be expressed as shown in (4). solid line: from least-square based curve fitting)
The parameter P in (4) is assumed as 2 according to the
IEEE standard C37 [10], and TD is set to 1 at the beginning. After obtaining the approximate recloser TCC equations, all
Similar to the definition process of fuse TCC equations, possible faults should be simulated in the feeder model
several points on the recloser TCC with corresponding current without any PV systems to verify the fuse-recloser
values and operation time values found from CYMTCC coordination. In each fault case, current seen by the recloser
library are entered in (4), and the least square method is and fuses are recorded and put into corresponding TCC

Figure 7 Flow chart of the procedure to investigate the fuse-recloser coordination

978-1-4799-4398-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 2103

equations generated from (1) and (4), and the operating time and a large PV system with varying locations and outputs is
of the recloser and the fuses are calculated and compared. built into the feeder model in each fault case. Simulation
Two categories of the fuse-recloser coordination, fuse-ground results are shown in TABLE I.
recloser coordination and fuse-phase recloser coordination,
should be verified and investigated. TD settings of the recloser TABLE I
is adjusted to achieve the fuse-recloser coordination under all SIMULATION RESULTS ON FUSE-RECLOSER COORDINATION
fault cases. PV location Coordination status
To verify the fuse-ground recloser coordination without any PV located near the No miscoordination occurs when PV output
PV system, all possible single-phase-ground-faults are applied recloser increases from 500 kW to 5000 kW
to fuse nodes downstream of the recloser individually. Using PV located at the No miscoordination occurs when PV output
the adjacency matrix generated, all the fuses downstream of middle of the feeder increases from 500 kW to 5000 kW
the main-line recloser in the feeder are obtained and totally Possible fuse-ground recloser miscoordination
124 single-phase-ground faults are applied on these fuse nodes PV located at the end when PV output is set to 5000 kW and a single-
respectively for fuse-ground recloser coordination verification. of the feeder phase-ground fault is applied on a node near the
The same feeder model case is used as in the procedure of feeder end
fuse-fuse coordination investigation. Results show that when
TD is set as 0.45 for ground recloser fast curve, the ground As seen from TABLE I, high penetration of large PV
recloser always operate first in fast mode during the faults, system (up to ~170% penetration level) can hardly affect the
then followed by the fuses and the ground recloser slow mode. fuse-recloser coordination in the feeder studied.
In this way, fuse-ground recloser coordination without PV
system is verified with the defined ground recloser fast and
slow curve TCC equations as listed in (5-6). V. CONCLUSION
Similarly, a total of 33 phase-phase fault cases are simulated This paper has illustrated a procedure for investigating the
individually for fuse-phase recloser coordination verification, coordination among protective devices with different levels of
with the parameters of the phase recloser defined to achieve PV penetration. The coordinated protective devices are
fuse-phase recloser coordination without PV systems, as given mapped using the adjacency matrix created from the topology
in (7-8). of a detailed feeder with around two-thousand sections and
two-hundred of fuses. The TCC equations are defined for each
  type and rating of the protective device using least-square
  based approximation of the TCC of the protective devices.
0.0687 (5)
t ground-recloser-fast (I) = 0.45 ⋅  + 0.0543 Simulations are run with each possible fault applied with
  I 2 
  -1  varying PV locations and outputs to explore the possibility of
  199   miscoordination. For the chosen feeder, it has been found that
  high PV penetration levels have minimal impact on the
  protection device coordination.
 15.1137 (6)
t ground-recloser-slow (I) = + 0.5839 The procedure outlined in this paper can be readily
  I 2  implemented in other feeders to help verify the protective
  -1  device coordination and to help in the determination of
  199  
locations and size of PV systems.
 
 
0.0258 (7)
t phase−recloser − fast ( I ) = 0.2 ⋅  + 0.059 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 I  2

  −1  This work was supported by the US Department of Energy
  339   under Award Number DE-EE0004679. The authors gratefully
  acknowledge the support from Arizona Public Service
  Company.
 1.667 (8)
t phase−recloser −slow ( I ) = + 0.4527 
  I 2 
  −1  REFERENCES
  339  
[1] Yingying Tang, Xiaolin Mao, and Raja Ayyanar, "Distribution system
modeling using CYMDIST for study of high penetration of distributed
The PV impact on fuse-ground recloser and fuse-phase solar photovoltaics," North American Power Symposium, pp. 1-6,
recloser coordination can then be investigated with the defined September, 2012.
and verified recloser TCC equations. All the possible single- [2] Yingying Tang, Raja Ayyanar, "Modeling and validation of a
distribution system with high PV penetration using zone division
phase-ground, two-phase and three-phase faults are simulated,

978-1-4799-4398-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 2104

 method," Accepted by IEEE Power Engineering Society Transmission
and Distribution Conference, 2014.
[3] R. A. Walling, R. Saint, R. C. Dugan, J. Burke, and L.A. Kojovic,
"Summary of distributed resources impact on power delivery system,"
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1636-1644, July. 2008.
[4] A. A. Girgis and S. M. Brahma, "Effect of distributed generation on
protective device coordination in distribution system," in Proc. IEEE
Large Eng. Syst. Conf., 2001, pp. 115-119.
[5] A. F. Naiem, Y. Hegazy, "A classification technique for recloser-fuse
coordination in distribution systems with distributed generation," IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 176-185, Jan. 2012.
[6] Hesam Yazdanpanahi, Yun Wei Li, and Wilsun Xu, "A new control
strategy to mitigate the impact of inverter-based DGs on protection
system," IEEE Trans. Smart Grid., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1427-1436, Sept.
2012.
[7] Hossein Hooshyar, Mesut E. Baran, and Luigi Vanfretti, "Coordination
assessment of overcurrent relays in distribution feeders with high
penetration of PV systems," IEEE Grenoble PowerTech , June 2013.
[8] S. Chaituaney and A. Yokoyama, "Prevention of reliability degradation
from recloser-fuse miscoordination due to distributed generation," IEEE
Trans. Power Del. vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2545-2554, Oct. 2008.
[9] CYME 5.0 ASCII File Structure (Importing / Exporting Database)
Reference Manual, Oct 2009, Rev. 1.4.
[10] IEEE Standard Inverse-Time Characteristic Equations for Over-current
Relays, IEEE Standard C37, 112-1996.

978-1-4799-4398-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 2105