SMART GRID, SMART CITY TECHNICAL CASE STUDIES

FAULT DETECTION, ISOLATION AND RESTORATION (FDIR)

QUICK FACTS
What is FDIR?
Fault Detection,
Isolation and
Restoration
(FDIR) is the
use of advanced
distribution
automation
technologies to
optimise the process
of restoring power
to customers in the
event of a fault.
What was trialled?
The FDIR project
trialled and
evaluated an FDIR
solution based on a
modern distribution
management system
(DMS) platform, 96
monitoring devices,
23 remote controlled
switches and over
500 smart meters.
Trial Period
October 2010 September 2013.
What were the key
outcomes?
FDIR was found to
have the potential to
significantly improve
network reliability,
with potential
SAIDI and SAIFI
reductions of over
60% demonstrated
in the simulations.
Page 1 of 7

IN BRIEF
The Fault Detection, Isolation and Restoration (FDIR) project trialled and evaluated
a collection of advanced distribution automation technologies used to optimise the
process of restoring power to customers in the event of a fault.
Traditionally, network providers have relied on a combination of customer calls
and alarms from circuit breakers at the zone substation to detect a fault on the
high voltage network; visual inspection and re-energisation of parts of the feeder
to locate it; and manual switching by field crews to isolate faulty equipment and
restore power. The smart grid enables network providers to continually monitor
a range of assets on the network to instantly detect and locate fault conditions
and automatically operate remote controlled switches to quickly isolate the faulty
section of the network and restore power to the healthy part of the feeder.
The FDIR project consisted of both field trial and simulation elements. The field trial
was conducted in Nelson Bay, NSW, and involved the deployment of an advanced
distribution management system (DMS), distribution monitoring devices, remotely
controlled switches and smart meters. The findings from the field trial were used to
validate the simulation models and to gain insights into the real world commercialscale deployment of these technologies. The simulations were designed to
determine the theoretical reliability improvements obtainable from various FDIR
technologies.
The simulation results showed that utilising FDIR to automatically operate
distributed switches could improve reliability by over 60%. Enabling remote
controlled switching was found to have the greatest incremental impact on
reliability, reducing customer outages from hours to minutes when switching was
performed by a control room operator. Automating the remote switching activities
reduced outages from minutes to seconds.
FDIR was one of the key smart grid applications identified for further evaluation
in the Smart Grid, Smart City pre-deployment report (McKinsey 2009). This case
study reports on the indicative business case for deploying FDIR in Australia on a
per feeder basis.

SMART GRID, SMART CITY TECHNICAL CASE STUDIES

FAULT DETECTION, ISOLATION AND RESTORATION (FDIR)
The AU$100
million Smart
Grid, Smart
City Program
ran between
2009 and
2013, testing
arguably one
of the widest
ranging
technology
assessments
of smart grid
products in
the world.

Power Restored
to Healthy Part of
Feeder
Fault
Occurs

Fault
Located

Field Staff
On Site
Investigation and
Feeder Patrol
20-40 min

Power Restored to All

Customers

20-40 min

Manual
Switching

Repairs

10-20 min

Potential Fault Duration Reduction from Implementing FDIR

Figure 1: Indicative Current Industry Approach Fault Restoration Timeline

CURRENT INDUSTRY APPROACH AND ITS LIMITATIONS

Network providers generally know a fault has occurred on the high-voltage (HV)
network through a feeder circuit breaker tripping, sending an alarm to the control
room. Subsequent customer calls, in combination with feeder patrols working their
way down the feeder, are used to narrow down the location of the fault. If the fault
is not located through this approach, a process of elimination is used to identify
the faulty section by sectionalising and re-energising different parts of the feeder
through manual switching. Once the faulty section has been identified, a detailed
visual inspection is carried out to verify the exact location of the fault. Manual
switching is then performed to restore power to customers on the healthy part of
the feeder.
Figure 1 shows an indicative timeline for current industry practice with respect to
fault location and restoration. This varies significantly depending on the type of fault,
the assets affected and whether the fault occurred in a rural or urban area. Generally,
the target in an urban network is to restore power to customers on the healthy part
of a feeder within 60 minutes and to have all customers reconnected within 120
minutes.
The main limitation with the current approach is that it is time consuming; it can take
considerable time for field staff to arrive on site due to traffic (urban environment)
or distance (rural environment). They must spend time patrolling the feeder to
locate the fault and perform manual switching before power can be restored to
unaffected customers. Long restoration times negatively affect network reliability,
commonly measured in System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), System
Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI), Momentary Average Interruption
Duration Index (MAIDI) and Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index
(MAIFI). SAIDI and SAIFI account for faults exceeding one minute, MAIDI and MAIFI
for faults of less than one minute.
The reliability of the distribution network is of significant importance to both
network providers and their customers. It can affect economic growth and
development, public health and safety, and societal well-being as well as have
financial implications for network providers through penalties payable under the
Service Target Performance Incentive Scheme (STPIS). STPIS provides incentives for
transmission and distribution businesses to maintain or improve performance. It acts
as a counterbalance to the efficiency benefit sharing scheme so businesses do not
reduce costs at the expense of service quality.

Page 2 of 7

SMART GRID, SMART CITY TECHNICAL CASE STUDIES

FAULT DETECTION, ISOLATION AND RESTORATION (FDIR)
You might
also be
interested in:
U.S.
Department
of Energy
Reliability
Improvements
from the
Application of
Distribution
Automation
Technologies
SP AusNet
Distribution
Feeder
Automation
(DFA)
Program

Normally
Open switch

Normally
Closed
Switch

A
Substation

A Normally
Open Switch

B Substation
B

Fault

Now
Served by
Substation C

Substation

Fault

C
C

C
Substation

C
Substation

Figure 2: Network configuration pre-switching

B Substation
B

Figure 3: Network configuration post-switching

BEST PRACTICE APPROACH AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS

FDIR involves utilising monitoring devices to detect fault conditions and remote
controlled switches for isolation and restoration. Automation algorithms process
the information from the field devices and either automatically operate switches
or provide advice to the control room operator on a recommended action. With
multiple monitoring points throughout the network and switches located to
enable sectionalising of the grid and rerouting of power, these algorithms are able
to execute complex control functions to automatically optimise the number of
customers restored.
FDIR solutions can either be centralised, distributed or a hybrid of the two. The
centralised approach uses a control room-based algorithm and requires fast
communications between the control room and field devices, while the distributed
approach involves automatically operated field devices and requires fast peer-topeer communication between the field devices.
The main benefits of implementing FDIR as part of a smart grid could be expected
to include:
Improving reliability by reducing the duration of faults and the number of customers
affected (customers reconnected more quickly after a fault)
Delivering operational improvements through more efficient use of field crews (less labour
required to identify, locate and repair faults)

Operational improvements are achieved by utilising remote switching capabilities for

both planned and unplanned outages, eliminating the need to dispatch operators
to manually operate switches in the field. Distribution monitoring and fault detection
devices can also help narrow down the possible location of a fault, reducing patrol
times.
It is important to note that implementing FDIR does not lead to a reduction in the
number of faults per se; it rather impacts the duration of faults. This is because FDIR
algorithms only react after the occurrence of a fault, at which point it operates to
minimise the restoration time for the customers on the healthy part of the feeder.

Page 3 of 7

SMART GRID, SMART CITY TECHNICAL CASE STUDIES

FAULT DETECTION, ISOLATION AND RESTORATION (FDIR)

Figure 4: Sectionalising Switch

Figure 5: Monitoring Device

Figure 6: Smart Meter

THE TRIAL
The FDIR trial consisted of both field trial and simulation elements. The field trial
results were used to validate the simulations and to evaluate the various FDIR
technologies. The trial also informed the business case for the deployment of FDIR
in Australia.
Field Trial
The field trial was undertaken in Nelson Bay NSW. This area is located on a peninsula
prone to storm activity and has historically low levels of reliability, which increased
the likelihood of the FDIR technologies having to operate. The Nelson Bay area
consists of two zone substations with ten overhead feeders supporting around
17,000 residential and business customers spread across more than 300 distribution
transformers.
The field trial was designed to test advanced distribution automation applications
based on a modern DMS platform. It involved the deployment and operation of 96
distribution monitoring devices, 23 remote controlled switches and over 500 smart
meters. The field trial involved the installation of switches mid-feeder to allow for
partial restoration and additional switches to allow for back feeding to adjacent
feeders. This would allow for the restoration of customers while minimising the
outage duration, provided there was sufficient capacity to back feed to the adjacent
feeder.
The deployment of switches also took tactical locations into consideration. For
example, a normally closed switch was installed at the edge of a bushland area
upstream from a load centre. This design would allow for the load centre to be
isolated from faults caused by vegetation by opening the switch, while closing a
normally open switch downstream would allow for the load centre to have power
restored from an adjacent feeder.
Simulations

Page 4 of 7

The FDIR simulations were designed to test the DMS system deployed as well as
to determine the incremental reliability improvement from adding switches and
automation capabilities. To ensure that the simulation model was production
equivalent, it was validated against real loads, energy consumption and end-ofline voltage from production data. The simulation environment allowed the project
to explore scenarios, for example the impact of adding and removing remotely
controlled switches, which would not have been possible in the field trial due to
logistical constraints and cost considerations.

SMART GRID, SMART CITY TECHNICAL CASE STUDIES

FAULT DETECTION, ISOLATION AND RESTORATION (FDIR)

% Change

Manual Remote
The manual
Sectionalising Switches
Switching
Automated FDIR
0%
remote
-10%
switching
capabilities
-20%
were utilised
-30%
during one
-40%
event in
the field
-50%
trial area.
-60%
It restored
SAIDI
SAIFI
a limited
Figure 7: Simulated SAIDI and SAIFI Reductions
number of
TRIAL OUTCOMES
customers
Field Trial
in this
There were a total of nine fault events registered in the Nelson Bay area during the
case, but it
field trial between August 2012 and August 2013, and only one of these involved
is a good
switching activities where the deployed FDIR solution could have had an impact.
indication
This one event involved back feeding to restore power to parts of a damaged
feeder via an adjacent zone substation. This zone substation was not part of the
of the
field trial scope and the FDIR control algorithm was therefore unable to assist in the
capabilities
restoration process, with the remote switching activities performed by the control
of the
room operator.
technology. These capabilities were also used for planned outages on a number of occasions

during the trial period, avoiding the need to dispatch field operators to manually
operate switches.
Simulations
The simulations demonstrated that utilising an FDIR algorithm to automatically
operate distributed switches reduced SAIDI and SAIFI by over 60% with the trial
area saturated with switches. That is with switches deployed to ensure that there
would always be a switching option available for the FDIR algorithm to restore
power to the healthy part of the feeder. This meant simulating the deployment
of two switches per feeder; one for sectionalising and one for back-feeding. With
switches deployed as per the field trial, the SAIDI and SAIFI reductions simulated
were approximately 40%.
The greatest incremental SAIDI reduction was demonstrated from deploying
remotely controlled switches for feeder sectionalising (Sectionalising Switches).
Switching could either be performed almost instantaneously through automation
(Automated FDIR), or with a slight delay if executed by a control room operator
(Manual Remote Switching). Simply enabling remote controlled switching reduced
the duration of faults for customers on the healthy part of a feeder from hours to
minutes. Adding automation capabilities reduced the duration with the difference
between the two response times, from minutes to seconds.

Page 5 of 7

SMART GRID, SMART CITY TECHNICAL CASE STUDIES

FAULT DETECTION, ISOLATION AND RESTORATION (FDIR)

LESSONS LEARNT
A structured and rigorous approach to testing and configuration management is
key for the safe and reliable introduction of new technologies and capabilities on
the network. Despite the DMS platform being comprehensively tested prior to it
being deployed, the resulting logic settings led to it not operating as expected
during fault events. In short, the scripted SCADA sequences used when testing the
DMS platform were not sourced from actual event logs and therefore were subject
to incorrect assumptions regarding how the SCADA points would behave in the
event of a fault. The DMS platform had to be reconfigured mid-trial to address
the issue. This highlights the challenges of introducing new capabilities such as
automation.
The FDIR capabilities were configured to operate in parallel with the existing DMS
to minimise business and process impact. The ability for operators to see the results
from the new systems side-by-side with their trusted systems meant they were able
to build confidence in the new systems quickly, since parallel operation gave them
a degree of comfort that the FDIR application was giving reasonable results. The
deployment of a parallel DMS in this manner worked extremely well and could be
considered for any smart grid transition project.
During the trial there were difficulties producing compliant earthing designs for the
specified switch locations. Almost all of the Nelson Bay area has poor soil resistivity,
owing to the fact it is a rocky, sandy peninsula, which makes earthing design more
challenging.

Page 6 of 7

SMART GRID, SMART CITY TECHNICAL CASE STUDIES

REFERENCES
Ausgrid, Fault
Detection Isolation
and Restoration,
SGSC Technical
Compendium, 2014
Ausgrid, GA0731
FDIR Simulation
Report, SGSC
Supporting
Document, 2014
Ausgrid, GA0718
FDIR Probabilistic
Simulation Report,
SGSC Supporting
Document, 2014

Net Benefit (NPV 2014 AU$ Real '000)

FAULT DETECTION, ISOLATION AND RESTORATION (FDIR)

$1,600

$1,464

$125
$1,337

$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0

$0.3
Seach Costs

VCR

Benefits

FDIR Opex

FDIR Capex
Costs

Net
Benefit

Figure 8: FDIR Cost and Benefits

BUSINESS CASE

NEXT STEPS

Figure 8 illustrates the cost-benefit

analysis of deploying FDIR in Australia
on a per feeder basis. It shows that the
benefit-to-cost ratio of FDIR is 12:1, with
the main benefit being savings realised
from the value of customer reliability
(VCR) as a result of reductions in SAIDI
and SAIFI.

The Consortium undertaking the

independent analysis and reporting for
Smart Grid, Smart City assessed the
findings from the trial and has identified
the following key next steps and actions
for Australia:

The incentive rates under STPIS are

calculated with reference to the VCR,
but the way these rates are currently
determined does not necessarily capture
the full value of VCR. To unlock the full
customer benefits and create a clear
incentive for FDIR, STPIS should be
reviewed to ensure that VCR is not
undervalued. An important step in this
process is to confirm that the current
VCR accurately reflects the value that
customers place on reliability. The work
by the Australian Energy Regulator
(AER) to develop a methodology to
determine the national VCR is a key step
in this process.
The main cost element relates to the
capital cost of switches and monitoring
devices, while operating costs are
limited.

Page 7 of 7

$2

$1,400

Further investigation into current network

reliability incentives need to be considered
to unlock full customer benefits
Build capabilities through R&D and share
best practice to reduce risk and costs
Incorporate automation capabilities
into the device designs to reduce the
incremental cost of the deployment