1

Fault Analysis and Protection of a Microgrid

E. Sortomme, Student Member, IEEE, G. J. Mapes, B. A. Foster, S. S. Venkata, Fellow, IEEE

AbstractAs penetration of distributed generation (DG) increases at the distribution level, managing these systems effectively becomes increasingly challenging. One proposed way to manage these systems is through the adoption of microgrids. A microgrid is a distribution level network made of several loads and DG sources that operate as a single aggregate load or generation source. Microgrids can either operate connected to the grid, or in the case of a grid fault, in an islanded mode. In this paper, we use Matlab Simulinks SimPowerSystems to model a small portion of distribution network as if it were a microgrid. We add a mix of renewable DG sources and one dispatchable source, which at maximum output can produce more power than the average microgrid load. We then simulate the four major fault types at each bus in both grid-connect and island modes and analyze fault currents and voltage levels in order to determine how the protection scheme of the distribution network would need to be changed to facilitate microgrid functionality. We show that standard protection methods are insufficient and propose the use of digital relays connected to breakers. Index TermsFault Analysis, Microgrid, Protection.

II. SYSTEM TOPOLOGY AND DG MODELS A. System Description A microgrid usually consists of small segments of a distribution network connected to local DG units and loads. The system used in this study is an 18-bus network with a load capacity of 3.03 MVA connected to a 10 MVA transformer. This system is the example distribution system shown in [3] with line parameters and feeder source impedance given. The phase loads of each bus were also given and are shown in Table 1. The system is protected using fuses and reclosers on the overhead lines and breakers on the underground lines. The classical distribution system is shown with the protection devices in Fig. 1. To this system we added four solar arrays, two wind turbines, and one diesel generator. The solar arrays are each connected to three-phase inverters and provide a total of 2,256 kW. The wind generators provide an additional 500 kW to the grid. During islanded operations, additional generation and load following is provided by a 300 kW diesel generator. The one line diagram of the system is shown in Fig. 2.
TABLE I BUS LOADS FOR THE MICROGRID IN FIG. 1, BLANK AREAS INDICATE
UNCONNECTED PHASES

I. INTRODUCTION

UE to the increased concern over global climate change, the demand for clean sustainable energy sources has increased greatly. One of the major problems with these sources, such as wind and solar, is integrating them into the larger power grid. One proposed way is to have distributed renewable generation sources integrated into a microgrid. A microgrid is defined as a low to medium voltage network of small load clusters with Distributed Generation (DG) sources and storage [1]. It can operate connected with the larger grid or islanded in the event of a grid fault. A microgrid is controlled by a single controller and is viewed as a single load or generation source by the larger system. It can be operated in industrial, commercial, and/or residential areas. One major challenge with operating a distribution level microgrid with Renewable Energy Sources (RES) connected to the system with inverters is protection against faults. In this paper we analyze fault currents on a larger system of distribution network than that used in [1], [2]. Our system is protected with a standard distribution protection scheme. Our objective is to see how the protection will need to be changed to facilitate microgrid operation with the inclusion of DG sources and islanding capabilities. Our system was built and simulated in Matlab Simulinks SimPowerSystems.
E. Sortomme, G. J. Mapes, B. A. Foster and S. S. Venkata are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA (email. eric.sortomme@gmail.com, mapes2010@hotmail.com, annebri@u.washington.edu, venkata@ee.washington.edu).

Phase A Phase B Phase C BUS P (kW) Q (kvar) P (kW) Q (kvar) P (kW) Q (kvar) 3 117 73 121 65 90 98 4 97 33 86 35 91 36 6 46 15 77 23 64 19 7 100 65 8 85 32 9 354 180 13 75 34 75 34 75 34 14 111 53 15 176 34 16 89 63 89 63 89 63 17 314 126 18 210 99 B. Models of DG Sources The inverter connected to the solar arrays is a current converter made with a three-phase IGBT/Diode Bridge controlled by a PWM generator with a voltage/current controller. The PWM has a carrier frequency of 4,320 Hz. This is connected in series to an LC low-pass filter for improved power quality. An additional LC filter was used in

978-1-4244-4283-6/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

the input to maintain the quality of the dc input signal. The input is any dc source rated between 50 kW and 570 kW and 5 kV. The output is a three-phase 12.47 kV system. Maximum allowable current is limited to 90 A, approximately twice the maximum power current. This is an adaptation of the inverter used in [4]. The diesel motor model used in this study is a modified version of the one used in [5] and is connected to a 300kW/12.47-kV synchronous generator Simulink block. The wind turbines are based on the wind turbine Simulink model demonstrated in [6]. This turbine is connected to a 100kW and 400-kW squirrel-cage induction generators. The turbines are given constant wind input needed for maximum capacity generation. The model for the PV modules is a simple single diode approximation with two resistors as shown in Fig. 3. This circuit is used to model a Sharp ND-Q0E2U 160-W module with I-V characteristics obtained from [7]. The resistor values are computed with the equations given in [8]. Though this model is not the most accurate, we feel it is sufficient for this study as the current limiting features of the inverter will dominate the dynamics in fault simulation. This module model is used to construct 564-kW arrays.

Fig. 2. One line diagram of the microgrid with added DG sources.

1 Rs +

Voc
-

Rsh

8.04 Isc 2 -

Fig. 3. Photovoltaic module model.

III. SIMULATION OF THE MICROGRID SYSTEM In this study, we are interested in evaluating the maximum and minimum fault currents at each bus in the microgrid. The system was built in Matlab Simulink using the SimPowerSystem toolbox. The system is simulated using Simulinks ode3 with a fixed time step of 1 microsecond. The four major faultssingle line to ground, line to line, double line to ground, and three phase faultsare initiated in the system 0.1 second after the system had reached steady state and is sustained for another 0.4 second. This allows the rms values of the symmetric fault currents to be measured. The fault impedance is chosen as 1m. The system is only simulated in the islanded mode as the fault currents at each bus for the original system configuration are given in [3]. Faults with DG source contributions in grid-connect mode can therefore be easily computed using superposition. Fault currents are measured on both the high (closest to substation) and low (farthest from the substation) side of the fault as most locations had generation on both sides. Currents are also measured at the high and low buses, (where high and low mean the same as above) that would need to have backup

Fig. 1. One line diagram of the conventional distribution system with standard protection.

The DG sources are placed in desirable areas, with the diesel generator supplying a balanced three-phase load which will most likely be industrial and have a backup power supply. The solar arrays are all, with the exception of the array at bus 12, placed with loads to simulate the aggregate effect of rooftop solar panels on homes and businesses. The wind turbines are placed on buses without loads as usually large turbines are placed in wide open areas or hilltops near transmission.

protection if the devices at the particular bus should fail. Additionally, a three phase power flow study is conducted for three cases: (1) on the original system, (2) on the gridconnected microgrid system, and (3) on the islanded system with the utility system isolated to compare the operating currents with the fault currents. IV. SIMULATION RESULTS The line currents for the three cases mentioned above are shown in Tables 2-4. The currents for normal operation are generally reduced with the addition of DG sources with the exception of lines 5 and 6 which connected to over twice the amount of generation than load. In grid-connect mode, the line currents were very similar to those in the island mode with the exception of lines 1 and 2 which have no connected sources or loads in the island mode. The line numbers correspond to the bus number on the furthest end from the substation, e.g., line 16 connects buses 16 and 10. Fault currents are significantly lower on all lines during the island mode. Some of the currents were less than 10% of the grid connected current. Fault currents for the four different types of faults are given in Tables 5-8 for islanded operation and Table 9 for grid-connected mode without DG sources. The voltage levels on all faulted phases dropped to less than 95% of the initial value throughout the entire grid for all grounded faults. For line-to-line faults, the voltage increased by nearly 60%, most likely due to over excitation of the wind turbines. The fault currents for island mode are very low for three main reasons. 1) Inverter current is limited to twice the maximum load current, 2) the fault currents are divided between the high side line and the low side line, and 3) the wind turbines delivered very small amounts of fault current due to loss of excitation field as a result of the voltage collapse on grounded phases. The over excitation of wind generators due to high voltage is also the reason why line-to-line faults in some locations are higher than line-to-line-to-ground faults. V. PROTECTION SCHEME It is clear from Tables 5-9 that to operate safely in islanded mode, the original protection scheme will be insufficient. The fuses and device settings are for current levels far too high. Next, it is clear that no standard over current protection method will work. Line 16 for example has a normal line current of 62 A on B-phase flowing from buses 10-16 and a fault current of 90 A flowing in the opposite direction for a fault at bus 10. Using directional protection will also not work as is demonstrated in the case of line 10, with a normal current of up to 77 A and a fault current for a fault at bus 10 of only 90 A. The next logical step would be to use a combination of over and under voltage protection. This will not work because the geographical area is too small and the voltage drop will propagate throughout the entire microgrid before the relays will have time to isolate the faulted line, leading to the tripping of all lines in the system. Additionally, over voltage protection methods, such as surge arrestors, do not clear

faulted lines. For these reasons, we propose that the only way to protect the microgrid is to use digital relays with breakers at each linebus connection so each line will have a breaker and digital relay at each end.
TABLE II NORMAL LINE CURRENTS FOR GRID-CONNECTED WITHOUT DG SOURCES

Line A-Phase B-Phase C-Phase 1 134.40 130.69 160.11 2 134.40 130.69 160.11 3 57.10 56.49 53.06 4 14.36 13.06 13.77 5 23.65 24.24 9.37 6 6.83 11.35 9.37 7 16.98 0.00 0.00 8 0.00 12.90 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 55.99 10 77.30 74.23 51.21 11 28.96 11.57 36.62 12 28.96 11.57 11.60 13 11.61 11.57 11.60 14 17.34 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 25.23 16 48.37 62.67 15.23 17 0.00 47.65 0.00 18 33.03 0.00 0.00

TABLE III NORMAL LINE CURRENTS FOR GRID-CONNECTED WITH DG SOURCES.

Line A-Phase B-Phase C-Phase 1 14.35 15.27 14.71 2 14.28 15.20 14.57 3 21.14 22.98 9.76 4 14.21 13.22 12.52 5 31.54 29.56 21.99 6 30.41 28.00 11.31 7 4.95 0.00 0.00 8 0.00 4.24 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 54.16 10 20.36 32.88 16.69 11 7.35 12.87 26.02 12 18.24 3.96 4.45 13 4.24 1.63 3.18 14 16.55 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 24.61 16 24.04 21.00 37.62 17 0.00 45.47 0.00 18 31.75 0.00 0.00

TABLE IV NORMAL LINE CURRENTS IN ISLAND MODE.

TABLE VI FAULT CURRENTS FOR 3-PHASE FAULTS.

Line A-Phase B-Phase C-Phase 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.07 0.07 0.07 3 20.65 23.62 13.36 4 14.07 13.08 12.30 5 32.31 29.20 23.62 6 28.28 25.95 10.18 7 4.74 0.00 0.00 8 0.00 4.24 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 56.57 10 20.72 29.84 13.36 11 5.23 11.17 24.54 12 12.80 3.89 7.07 13 5.52 1.98 6.86 14 16.90 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 24.04 16 29.20 15.41 42.71 17 0.00 44.69 0.00 18 31.89 0.00 0.00
TABLE V FAULT CURRENTS FOR LINE-TO-GROUND FAULTS.

Primary Primary Backup Backup Backup Backup Low High Low Low High High Line Current Current Bus Current Bus Current

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 16

0 0 89.8 0 89.8 89.8 0 137.5 89.8 50.9 89.7

401.7 406 316.9 405.2 312 203 405.5 269 315.2 357.9 317.3

3 3 6 2 6 12 13 13 11

179 179.5 89.6 228.7 88.9 52.6 54.9 150.4 141.1

10 10 10 5 3 5 3 2 10 11 2

223.8 234.3 227.8 89.7 225.6 203 179.3 179.3 268.6 394.7 179.3

TABLE VII FAULT CURRENTS FOR LINE-TO-LINE-TO-GROUND FAULTS.

Primary Primary Backup Backup Backup Backup Low High Low Low High High Line Current Current Bus Current Bus Current

Primary Primary Backup Backup Backup Backup Low High Low Low High High Line Current Current Bus Current Bus Current

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 0 89.8 15.6 89.8 0 0 0 22.5 104.3 89.8 85.6 0 0 89.8 0 0

225.2 285 269 224.4 173.8 153.9 14.6 12.2 179.7 319.8 153.1 170.3 231.3 263.4 210.2 109.2 178.1 259.1

3 3 6 5 6 6 6 10 12 13 13 13 12 11 16

91.1 89.9 89.7 22.5 89.7 83.2 88.4 94.8 57 58.6 49.6 48.6 40.1 108.2 119.5

10 10 10 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 10 11 11 10 2 10 10

146.1 201.1 242.2 156.3 162.1 196.4 68 54.4 84.4 89.4 86.7 154.9 145.5 151.7 144.8 94 98 94.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 16

0 0 89.8 0 102.2 89.8 21.5 157 89.8 80.6 89.6

338.9 427.3 257.8 344.1 243.3 453.9 447.6 274.7 250.8 360.3 249.0

3 3 6 5 6 12 13 13 11

185.2 188.9 89.7 102.3 89.6 77.4 78.8 82.3 146.3

10 10 10 2 2 3 3 2 10 11 2

154.8 222.7 152.6 157.1 153.2 457.7 186 179.4 277.7 276.4 107.3

TABLE VIII FAULT CURRENTS FOR LINE-TO-LINE FAULTS.

Primary Primary Backup Backup Backup Backup Low High Low Low High High Line Current Current Bus Current Bus Current

1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 16

0 0 80.6 0 106.1 93.6 12.9 132.1 89.8 46.6 93.2

368.0 365.2 285.1 89.7 290.8 56.0 361.9 243 305.1 328.3 311.7

3 3 6 5 6 12 13 13 11

171.6 170.8 85.6 103.9 85.6 47.0 49.4 46.8 133.2

10 10 10 2 2 3 3 2 10 11 2

198.6 199.9 198.2 213.1 208.9 138.4 169.7 174.5 244.5 242.8 175.3

TABLE IX FAULT CURRENTS FOR GRID-CONNECTED WITHOUT DG SOURCES

LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

TYPE OF FAULT 3-Phase L-L-G L-L 3123 3720 2705 2506 2497 2170 2013 1870 1743 1749 1608 1514 987 907 855 785 723 679 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2245 2083 1944 2059 1831 1784 1924 1665 1666 1729 1449 1497 0 0 0 0 0 0 1972 1721 1708 2.6 1.9 0.39 0 0 0

L-G 3793 2947 2013 1623 767 586 526 518 2597 2579 2322 2138 1879 2056 2188 2202 1.73 2107

Digital relays such as those described in [10] can detect over voltage, under voltage, and over current. They are programmable and have communication which will allow for fault isolation with over and under voltage by comparing relative voltage levels. The highest over voltage will be the location of the line-to-line fault, and the lowest under voltage will be the location of the grounded fault. Programmability and communication will also allow for over current protection in grid connected mode and voltage protection in islanded mode. These next generation programmable relays are the only way to protect a microgrid that can operate in the islanded mode. VI. DISCUSSION The purpose of this paper is to analyze the fault currents on a realistic microgrid to investigate the changes needed to the protection of the microgrid system. Though we did not simulate line-to-ground, line-to-line, and line-to-line-toground faults on each phase combination of each bus, we feel that we have sufficiently shown that the traditional protection methods will not work. Fault simulation on additional phases can only reinforce what we have already demonstrated because protection must be for the lowest and highest fault currents. The lowest can only get lower and the highest higher with additional simulation. Also, though our placement of DG sources is done in a semi-logical manner, we feel that the results will hold true for most generation mixes of high inverter penetration. This is important since user installed DG can occur at any location in the distribution network. Though we only used solar arrays connected to the inverters, the current limiting characteristics will be the same for all inverter connected sources such as 20 kW and smaller dc wind generators [11] and storage such as

fuel cells and grid-connected electric vehicles, which could provide storage solutions in the near future. We feel that as more and more utilities adopt net metering, and consumers begin to install onsite RES such as wind and solar, the type of microgrid presented in this paper will be the more common occurrence. The main transition will be to give the microgrid the ability to island, which will increase the reliability to the consumer. The main problem with giving the microgrid the ability to island for a time is the cost of changing the protection scheme. Digital relays are very expensive, costing between $900 and $3000 per relay [10]. One way to mitigate this cost is to charge the owners of DG sources a protection and reliability tariff on their generation. A tariff of 0.005$/kWh will generate $5,000 every ten years for every 100 kW of installed RES capacity assuming it produces at least 15% nameplate rating per year. This will be able to more than pay for the cost of installing and maintaining digital relays. In addition to the protection abilities of the relays, the communication link is integral to the development of Smartgrid, and can be used to send price and other signals to storage, controllable loads, and dispatchable generation within the microgrid. This will lead to enhanced reliability and lower costs to the consumers, as well as allow utilities to integrate larger penetration levels of non-controllable RES such as wind and solar farms. VII. CONCLUSION As demand for RES increases, one way to integrate them into the power system is in microgrids. In this paper we have accurately modeled and simulated an 18 bus microgrid with several types of DG sources and high inverter penetration. We simulated faults and calculated the fault currents in both gridconnect and island modes. We conclude that based on the simulated currents, traditional protective devices will be unable to protect the system in island operation. Our results are in accordance with those shown in [1], [2], that overcurrent protection methods are insufficient on microgrids due to the current limitations of most inverters. We proposed that programmable digital relays will be able to not only protect the microgrid, but help enhance communication to other parts of the system. This ability will further the implementation of smartgrid to enhance security, reliability, and economics for both users and for utilities. VIII. REFERENCES
[1] T. C. Green and J. D. McDonald, "Modelling and Analysis of Fault Behaviour of Inverter Microgrids to Aid Future Fault Detection," Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, 2007, pp. 16-18. H. Nikkhajoei and R. H. Lasseter, "Microgrid Protection," Proceedings of IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2007, June 2007, pp. 1-6. Cooper Power Systems, Ed. 3, Electrical Distribution-System Protection, Cooper Industries, 1990. G. Sybille Hydro-Quebec, Simulink: AC-DC-AC PWM Converter. [Matlab]. Natick, MA: MathWorks, Inc., 2007. G. Sybille Hydro-Quebec, Simulink: Emergency Diesel-Generator and Asynchronous Motor. [Matlab]. Natick, MA: MathWorks, Inc., 2007. R. Reid, B. Saulnier, R. Gagnon, Simulink: Wind-turbine asynchronous generator in isolated network, [Matlab]. Natick, MA: MathWorks, Inc., 2007.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

6 Sharp Electronics Corportation, 160 Watt Spec Sheet, Feb. 29, 2008, http://directpower.com/products/modules/sharp/160WattSpecSheet.pdf. [8] R. C. Campbell, A Circuit-based Photovoltaic Array Model for Power System Studies," Proceedings of North American Power Symposium, 2007, pp. 97-101. [9] G. N. Kariniotakis, N. L. Soultanis, A. I. Tsouchnikas, S. A. Papathanasiou, and N. D. Hatziargyriou, "Dynamic Modeling of MicroGrids," in Future Power Systems International Conference, 2005, pp. 1-7, 16-18. [10] Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc., SEL-751A Feeder Protection Relay, June 2008, http://www.selinc.com/sel-751a.htm. [11] Proven Energy, Proven Energy Products, June 2008, http://www.provenenergy.co.uk/windturbine_products.shtml. [7]

IX. BIOGRAPHIES
Eric Sortomme was born in Ephrata, Washington on September 22, 1981. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Brigham Young University in 2007 with a Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering. He is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Washington with research emphasis on Smartgrid technologies and wind power integration. His employment experience includes internships with Wavetronix LLC and Puget Sound Energy. He became a student member of IEEE in 2008. Gregory Joel Mapes was born in Bremerton Washington in 1981. Gregory graduated high school at Bremerton High school in 2000. He is currently an Electrical Engineering major at the University of Washington. Work experience includes an internship at the Western Electricity Coordinating Council.

Brianne Foster was born in Everett, Washington on June 20, 1987. She will graduate from the University of Washington in June 2010 with a Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering, specializing in large scale power systems, sustainable electric energy, and power electronics and electric drives. Her employment experience includes the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Washington and the United States Department of Energys Bonneville Power Administration. S. S. Venkata is currently an Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington. He has taught for more than 38 years at five different universities. He is an author or co-author of more than 300 technical publications and/or presentations. He is a Life Fellow of the IEEE