Inverter-Based versus Synchronous-Based Distributed Generation; Fault Current

Limitation and Protection Issues

A.M. Massoud

Shehab Ahmed

Member

Member

Qatar University
Doha, Qatar
ahmed.massoud@qu.edu.qa

S. J. Finney

Texas A&M University

Doha, Qatar
shehab.ahmed@qatar.tamu.edu

I.

generation,

Fault

II. INVERTER-BASED DG
A block diagram of three-phase IBDG is shown in Fig. 1.
The energy source is connected to the inverter through a
conditioning stage (either AC/DC, AC/DC/DC or DC/DC
converters). The three phase voltage source inverter is
interfaced to the distribution network through an LC filter
and transformer. In Fig. 1, reference active and reactive
powers are set and reference currents can be extracted from
the voltage measurements of the common coupling. A phase
locked loop is employed for transforming the three-phase
stationary reference frame to two phase synchronously
rotating reference one. Proportional-integral control is
employed for controlling the currents. Space vector
modulation is employed as a pulse width modulation (PWM)
technique, as it introduces the lowest total harmonic
distortion and increases the inverter gain compared to
sinusoidal PWM.

Levels,

INTRODUCTION

The connection of distributed generation (DG) onto the

low and medium voltage parts of the electricity supply
network can result in raised fault levels; resulting in increased
stress on network components. This issue has been identified
as a potential limit to the level of installed DG that may be
integrated into existing networks [1-16]. Fault current
limiting (FCL) devices offer a means of managing this issue
without the need for extensive network reinforcement.
The contribution of DG to network fault levels will depend
heavily on the technology employed [11,13-16]. In the case
of directly connected rotating machines, the fault behavior is
well established; with synchronous generators contributing
higher fault levels than corresponding induction generators.
The synchronous generator passes through three stages
during faults: subtransient (0-50ms), transient (50ms-1s), and
steady state (>1s). The transient and steady state short circuit
currents depend on the excitation system. Solid state
excitation can be used for controlling and limiting the fault
current [14]. In induction generators, the magnetic excitation
of the induction generator (IG) is fed from the power system.
Short circuiting the induction generator at its terminal causes
loss of excitation which results in a collapse of the fault
current contribution. Currents decrease to an insignificant
value after 100 to 300 ms, thus, IGs do not contribute to the

978-1-4244-5287-3/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE

Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK

s.finney@eee.strath.ac.uk
barry.williams@eee.strath.ac.uk

steady state fault current [14].

The contribution of inverter-based distributed generation
(IBDG) is the lowest due the capability of this technology to
exhibit non over-load characteristics. However the behavior
of this generation under fault conditions is determined by the
employed control methods. In this paper, an investigation of
the effect of DG type on the fault current is presented.

Abstract -- The contribution of distributed generation (DG) to

network fault levels depends heavily on the technology
employed. In the case of directly connected rotating machines
the fault behavior is well established; with synchronous
generators contributing higher fault levels than the
corresponding induction generators. The contribution of
inverter-based distributed generation (IBDG) is the lowest due
the capability of this technology to exhibit non over-load
characteristics. However the behavior of this generation
technology under fault conditions is determined by the
employed control methods. In this paper, an investigation of the
effect of the DG type on the fault current is investigated.
Simulations for case studies have been conducted using
Matlab/Simulink.
Index Terms-- Distributed
Inverters, Protection.

B.W. Williams

III. THE CHALLENGES TO HIGHLY DISTRIBUTED POWER

SYSTEM PROTECTION

The following are challenges to network protection [5,7]:

1. Prevention of automatic reclosing
2. Unsynchronized reclosing
3. Blinding of protection
4. Increased or decreased fault levels
5. Unwanted islanding
6. False tripping of feeders (sympathetic tripping)
Sympathetic tripping [5] occurs when a protective device
operates unreasonably during faults. This can be due to the
fault contribution of the DG. As shown in Fig. 2, the relay at
CB1 and the recloser are not directional. Adequate fault
current contribution from the distributed generation would
cause an operation in sympathy with CB2 which should

58

Wind
or
feul cell
or
PV
or
-turbine

AC/DC
or
AC/DC/DC
or
DC/DC
converter

Sa

S'a

Sb

S'b

Sc v
inva
v invb
v invc

Li

Lg

i ga
i gb
i gc

v ga
v gb
v gc

Grid

S'c
C

To gate drives of
IGBT

abc
to
dq

v inva_ref

PWM v invb_ref
generator v invc_ref

dq to
abc

v invd_ref
v invq_ref

i gd

PLL

i gq

i gd_ref

v gd

Current
Calculator
controller i gq_ref

Fig. 1. Block diagram of an inverter-based DG

P ref
Q ref

DG
interrupt the fault first.
It cannot be guaranteed that DG will be disconnected
faster than fuse blowing and false tripping. The DG can
result in false protection operation [8]. If IBDG is used, these
problems can be solved easily. Due to fast dynamic response
of IBDG, these problems can be avoided.
From the point of view of fault levels, there are three
scenarios in highly distributed power systems:
1. Domination of synchronous and induction generators
2. Domination of IBDG
3. Combination of both 1 and 2
Requirements for Scenario 1
In this scenario excessive short circuit current must be
limited by means of FCL devices, provided the contribution
from IBDG remains relatively small. These units may be
tripped out (dependant on the location and rating) during
faults.
Requirements for Scenario 2
In this case the growth in installed capacity is mainly
provided by IBDG, such devices have an inherent current
limiting capability. Under this scenario IBDG provides a
significant part of the installed capacity leading to a fault ride
through requirement. The role of specific FCL devices is
likely to be minimal.
Requirements for Scenario 3
In the third scenario fault level may be managed through
the use of FCL devices and current limited IBDG interfaces.
Requirements will depend upon the generation mix. Effective
fault level management will depend on the coordination of
these technologies.

CB
1

recloser
load

CB

Fig. 2. Sympathetic tripping

(if the IBDG dominates the system):

1. The IBDG continues operation and feeds the fault but the
inverter output current is limited avoiding any harm for the
inverter switches.
2. When a fault is detected (from the point of view of the
inverter), the inverter is tripped out and only the utility feeds
the fault and operates with the pre-designed protection
devices.
V. CASE STUDIES
Simulation results have been carried out using
MATLAB/SIMULINK for four different case studies. In the
following four case studies, the IBDG is a three phase
inverter with a constant DC voltage (the variation of the DC
voltage is neglected).
A. Case (1): high fault current
If the DG is connected to the grid as shown in Fig. 3, it is
expected that the fault level increases at the specified fault
location after the DG insertion. But when IBDG is used and
due to the limited fault current that it can provide (it is
assumed here to be 1.5 times the full load current), the
problem of high fault current levels disappears.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IBDG

The contribution of the IBDG is limited during faults such
that its effect is negligible compared to synchronous
generators [14]. There are two scenarios when a fault occurs

59

trips out the feeder at 0.35s. Fig. 8 shows the simulation

results for the case when the IBDG detects fault occurrence
and clearance, and connects and disconnects respectively.
The fault starts at 0.3s and the recloser clears the fault at
0.35s.

Grid current
Feeder current
recloser CB
load

C. Case (3): upstream and downstream the fault-connected

DG
If two DGs are connected to the grid as shown in Fig. 9,
the fault current sharing among the two DGs and the grid is
tricky to calculate. Using IBDG for the two DGs, almost all
the fault current is supplied from the grid which enables a
proper action of the CB.
The IBDG1 supplies 10kW and 1kVAR while the IBDG2
supplies 10kW and no VAR. Fig. 10 shows the simulation
results for the case when IBDG1 (upstream the fault)
continues supplying the fault current and IBDG2
(downstream the fault) detects fault occurrence. The fault
starts at 0.2s and the CB trips at 0.35s. Fig. 11 shows the
simulation results for the same condition in Fig. 10 except
that the fault is temporary. Fig. 12 shows the same results as
in Fig. 11 except that IBDG1 disconnects.

DG
Inverter
current
load

Fig. 3. Case (1): high fault current

The IBDG supplies 10kW and 1kVAR. Fig. 4 shows the

simulation results for the case that the IBDG continues
supplying the fault current. The fault starts at 0.2s and the CB
trips out the feeder at 0.35s. Fig. 5 shows the simulation
results for the case when the IBDG detects fault occurrence
and clears it (it connects and disconnects respectively). The
fault starts at 0.3s and the recloser clears the fault at 0.35s.

D. Case (4): sympathetic tripping

If the two DGs are connected to the grid as shown in Fig.
13, the fault current passing through feeder (2) for a fault in
feeder (1) may cause sympathetic tripping for CB2. Using
IBDG for the two DGs, almost all the fault current is supplied
from the grid.

400

400

Grid current (A)

Feeder current (A)

B. Case (2): fault through high impedance

If the DG is connected to the grid as shown in Fig. 6, it is
expected that for a fault through high impedance, the fault
level is not sufficient for the CB to trip. Using IBDG, almost
all the fault current is supplied from the grid which enables
proper CB action.
The IBDG supplies 10kW and 1kVAR. Fig. 7 shows the
simulation results for the case when the IBDG continues
supplying the fault current. The fault starts at 0.2s and the CB
200
0
-200
-400
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

200
0
-200
-400
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (S)

Inverter Power

Inverter current (A)

100
50
0
-50
-100
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time (S)

(a)

0.4

0.5

x 10

(b)

Active power (W)

1
0

Reactive power (VAR)

-1
-2
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (S)

0.3

Time (S)

(c)

(d)

400

400

200

200

Grid current (A)

Feeder current (A)

Fig. 4. IBDG continues supplying the fault in case (1)

0
-200
-400
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time (S)

0
-200
-400
0

0.1

0.2

Inverter Power

Inverter current (A)

100
0
-100
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

(b)

200

-200
0

0.3
Time (S)

(a)

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time (S)

x 10

4
2
0
-2
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Time (S)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 5. IBDG disconnects for fault conditions in case (1)

60

DG
Inverter
current

Grid
current

recloser
load

high
impedance

Grid
current

Feeder
current CB

Inverter 2
current

recloser CB

Feeder
current

load

DG2

Inverter 1
current

load

DG1

load

Fig. 6. Case (2): fault through high impedance

IBDG1 supplies 10kW and 1kVAR while IBDG2 supplies

5kW and no VAR. Fig. 14 shows the simulation results for
the case that IBDG1 and IBDG2 continue supplying the fault
current. The fault starts at 0.2s and is cleared out by the
recloser at 0.35s.

Fig. 9. Case (3): upstream and downstream the fault-connected DG

Many new generation technologies must connect to the

grid via inverter interfaces. In such cases, the inverter
provides a means of fault current management. The study of
IBDG under fault conditions and the development of
appropriate control methodologies provide a complimentary
development stream to FCL technology development. IBDG
case studies supporting this conclusion have been presented
in this work.

VI. CONCLUSION

VII.

200

200

100
0
-100
-200
0

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This publication was made possible by the support of an

NPRP grant from the Qatar National Research Fund.
Grid current (A)

Feeder current (A)

The effect of distributed generation during faults on the

electric power system has been presented. It is concluded that
fault current management solutions must match the
generation technologies employed. Where conventional
rotating plants dominate, FCL or fast acting circuit breakers
are required.

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

100
0
-100
-200
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (s)

20
0
-20
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x 10

Reactive Power (VAR)

-1
-2
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.6

(d)

200

200

Grid current (A)

Feeder current (A)

0.3

Time (s)

100
0
-100
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

100
0
-100
-200
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (s)

Inverter power

150
100
50
0
-50

x 10

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

(b)

4
2

Active Power (W)

Reactive Power (VAR)

-2
0

0.1

0.3

Time (s)

(a)
Inverter current (A)

0.6

Active Power (W)

(c)
Fig. 7. IBDG continues supplying the fault in case
(2)

-100
0

0.5

Time (s)

-200
0

0.4

(b)
2

Inverter power

Inverter current (A)

(a)
40

-40
0

0.3

Time (s)

0.1

0.2

0.3

Time (s)

Time (S)

(d)

(c)

Fig. 8. IBDG disconnects for fault conditions in case

(2)

61

400

Grid current (A)

Feeder current (A)

400
200
0
-200
-400
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

200
0
-200
-400
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (S)

0
-50
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

x 10

Active power (W)

1
0

Reactive power (VAR)

-1
0

0.6

Time (S)

0.1

0.2

0.3

Time (S)

(c)

(d)
15000

40

Inverter (2) power

Inverter (2) current (A)

0.5

(b)

50

20
0
-20
-40
0

0.4

Inverter (1) power

Inverter (1) current (A)

(a)
100

-100
0

0.3

Time (S)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Active power (W)

10000
5000

Reactive power (VAR)

0
-5000
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Time (S)

Time (S)

(f)

(e)

400

400

Grid current (A)

Feeder current (A)

Fig. 10. IBDG1 continues and IBDG2 disconnects (permanent fault) in case (3)

200
0
-200
-400
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

200
0
-200
-400
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (S)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time (S)

(a)

(b)
2

Inverter (1) power

Inverter (1) current (A)

100
50
0
-50
-100
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x 10

Active power (W)

Reactive power (VAR)

0
-1
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (S)

0.3

Time (S)

(c)

(d)
2

Inverter (2) power

Inverter (2) current (A)

50

-50
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x 10

1
0
-1
0

0.6

Time (S)

Active power (W)

Reactive power (VAR)

0.1

0.2

0.3

Time (S)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 11. IBDG1 continues and IBDG2 disconnects (temporary fault) (case (3))
[7]

VIII.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

M. T. Doyle, Reviewing the impacts of distributed generation on

distribution system protection, in proc. 2002 IEEE Annual Power
Engineering Society Summer Meeting, pp. 103-105.
[8] S. Chaitusaney, A. Yokoyama, Impact of protection coordination on
sizes of several distributed generation sources, in Proc. 2005 IEEE
Power Engineering Conf. pp. 669-674.
[9] J. C. Gomez, M. M. Morcos, Coordination of voltage sag and over
current protection in DG systems, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.
20, pp. 214-218, Jan. 2005.
[10] D. M. Vilathgamuwa, P. C. Loh, Y. Li, Protection of Microgrids
During Utility Voltage Sags, IEEE Trans. Industrial Electronics, vol.
53, pp. 1427-1436.
[11] N. Nimpitiwan, G. T. Heydt, R. Ayyanar, S. Suryanarayanan, Fault
Current Contribution From Synchronous Machine and Inverter Based
Distributed Generators, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 22, pp. 634641, Jan. 2007.

REFERENCE

R. Chokhawala, G. Castino, IGBT fault current limiting circuit, IEEE

Industry Applications Magazine, vol. 1, pp. 30-35, Oct. 1995.
R. C. Dugan, T. E. McDermott, Distributed generation, IEEE
Industry Applications Magazine, vol. 8, pp. 30-35, April 2002.
K. Malmedal, P. K. Sen, J. P. Nelson, Application of out-of-step
relaying for small generators in distributed generation, IEEE Trans.
Industry Applications, vol. 41, pp. 1506-1514, Dec. 2005.
http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/ecol-pool/bericht/bericht_424.pdf
Y. Baghzouz, Voltage Regulation and Overcurrent Protection Issues
in Distribution Feeders with Distributed Generation - A Case Study, in
Proc. 2005 Annual Hawaii International Conf. pp. 66b-66b.
https://archive.ugent.be/retrieve/3284/Renders_paper024.pdf.

62

400

Grid current (A)

Feeder current (A)

400
200
0
-200
-400
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

200
0
-200
-400
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (S)

Inverter (1) power

Inverter (1) current (A)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x 10

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.6

Active power (W)

1
0

Reactive power (VAR)

-1
-2
0

0.6

0.1

0.2

Time (S)

(c)

0.3
Time (S)

(d)

15000

50

Inverter (2) pow er

Inverter (2) current (A)

0.4

(b)

(a)
50

-50
0

0.3

Time (S)

-50
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Active power (W)

10000
5000

Reactive power (VAR)

0
-5000

Time (S)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time (S)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 12. IBDG1 and IBDG2 disconnect (temporary fault) (case (3))
[12] J. Jager, T. Keil, L. Shang, R. Krebs, New protection co-ordination
methods in the presence of distributed generation, in Proc. 2004 IEE
Developments in Power System Protection Conf. pp. 319-322.
[13] DTI report Integration of Additional Microgeneration, (SIAM)
CONTRACT NUMBER:
DG/CG/00028/REP URN NUMBER:
04/1644 (http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file15192.pdf)
[14] DTI report The contribution to distribution network fault levels,
CONTRACT NUMBER: DG/CG/00027/00/00, URN NUMBER:
05/1249 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file15199.pdf
[15] DTI report solutions for the connection and operation of distributed
generation,
K/EL/00303/00/01/REP,
URN
03/1195
http://www.ensg.gov.uk/assets/solutions.pdf
[16] DTI report STABILITY OF NETWORKS WITH,
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION AND POWER CONVERTER
INTERFACES,
Final
Report
CONTRACT
NUMBER:
K/EL/00273/REP
URN
NUMBER:
04/1367
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file15188.pdf

DG2

0.4

0.5

0.6

Grid current (A)

Inverter (1) current (A)

0.3

Feeder 1
current

50
0
-50
-100

0.1

0.2

Feeder (2) current (A)

Feeder (1) current (A)

200
0
-2 0 0

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

20
0
-2 0
-4 0

0 .1

0 .2

Active power (W)

0

Reactive power (VAR)

-1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time (S)

Inverter (2) power

x 10

Reactive power (VAR)

-0.5
-1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 .6

20
0
-2 0
-4 0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

(f)

Active power (W)

0.5

0 .5

40

T im e (S )

(e)

0 .4

(d)

-2

0 .3

T im e (S )

(c)

0.6

40

0 .6

Inverter (2) current (A)

Inverter (1) power

x 10

0.5

60

T im e (S )

0.4

(b)

400

0 .1

0.3

Time (S)

(a)

Inverter 1
current

100

Time (S)

-4 0 0

CB

Fig. 13. Case (4): sympathetic tripping

-200
0.2

DG1

load

0.1

recloser

load

200

CB

recloser

400

-400

Grid
current

Feeder 2
current

Inverter 2
current

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time (S)

(g)

Fig. 14. IBDG1 and IBDG2 continue working (temporary fault) (case (4))

63

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6