Voltage Profile and Short Circuit Analysis in

Distribution Systems with DG

Fatih M. Nurolu, Aysen Basa Arsoy

Abstract-- The use of distributed generation (DG) within
distribution systems has increased for the last two decades
due to institutional requirements and technical advances.
This study presents the impact of DG in different types of
distribution systems in terms of voltage profile and short
circuit analysis. Test systems representing three types of
distribution systems (radial, loop and network) are
simulated using the simulation tool of Powerfactory-
DigSilent while changing the location and penetration level
of DG in the system. The results are useful in better
understanding the system impact of DG

Index Terms-- Distributed generation, steady-state
voltage profile, short-circuit currents, distribution system
(radial, loop and network)


I.INTRODUCTION

Electric distribution systems around the world are
utilizing increasing numbers of connections of small size
generators [1]. These generators may include
conventional and renewable technologies. When
different types of electrical sources are introduced in
distribution systems, the primary substation is no longer
the sole source of power and short circuit capacity [2].
Therefore, distribution systems with distributed
generation (DG) require new approaches in their
planning and operation.

DG may bring many advantages such as unloading
subtransmission and transmission system, decreasing
system losses, improving power quality and reliability.
Some of the technical factors affecting these advantages
can be listed as follows:
System related factors (Distribution system
type, transformer connection, line
impedance, and system load),
DG related factors (DG type, DG size,
control mode and location of DG)




This work was supported by the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey under a grant 105E105

Fatih M. Nurolu and Ayen Basa Arsoy are with the Dept. of
Electrical Engineering, Kocaeli University, Vezirolu Campus,
zmit-Kocaeli-Turkey.
(e-mail: fnuroglu@kocaeli.edu.tr; aba@kocaeli.edu.tr )

Both system and DG related factors should be taken
into account to maximize the benefits of DG into the
system. Otherwise, adverse effects, such as voltage rise,
misoperation of protective relays may exist

The objective of this study is to determine the effects
of DG on voltage profile and short-circuit currents of
different types of distribution system, as the location,
size and control type of DG are varied. A brief overview
of distributed generation sources and their comparison is
given first. Then, test systems representing radial, loop
and network type of distribution systems are introduced.
Steady state and short circuit analyses are carried out
using a simulation tool Powerfactory-DigSilent [3].
Voltage profile and the changes in short circuit currents
are given in both tabular and graphical form for different
types of systems to compare effects of DGs in varied
penetration level. The last section finally summarizes the
main conclusions drawn from the simulation results.


II. OVERVIEW OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION

Distributed generation (DG) can be defined as small
size generators operating isolated or connected to
electric distribution systems. These generators may be
conventional generators, (coal-fuel oil- hydro powered
synchronous machines) as well as sources including fast
developing technologies such as photovoltaics, wind
turbines, fuell cells and microturbines [4].
Characteristics of these sources are different. While
synchronous generators can produce real power and
produce and consume reactive power, induction
generators used for wind applications can only produce
active power and they need reactive power.
Photovoltaics and fuell cells are DC sources and require
power electronics interface to connect to an AC system.

All types of distributed sources should not actively
regulate distribution system voltages based on IEEE
Standard 1547 [5]. Therefore, constant power factor
control mode of operation is preferred although
synchronous generators are capable of controlling
voltage at the point of connection point of DG. The
utility voltage regulation may be implemented by
switched capacitor banks, step type voltage regulators or
substation transformer on-load tap changers [2].

2008 IEEE Electrical Power & Energy Conference
978-1-4244-2895-3/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE
The selection of DG location and penetration is
important in minimizing line losses, improving voltage
profile, reducing the effects of short circuit currents. As
a result, better quality and reliability in the system is
achieved. The following section discusses how steady
state voltages and short circuit currents change
depending on the size, control mode and the number of
connection points of DG in the system.


III. VOLTAGE AND SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT
ISSUES IN SYSTEMS WITH DG

Three types of distribution test systems were used for
simulation studies. These test systems represent radial,
loop and network type systems. Machine, line and load
data for these systems were taken from [6,7]. However,
data for network type system has been modified. In the
simulations, it was assumed that radial and network type
systems are connected to a strong grid while loop type
system has a weak grid connection. Furthermore, bus
voltages at grid connection points were kept constant. It
should be noted that DG units were connected to the
system through delta-grounded wye transformer
(grounded wye on the utility side).
Power flow and fault analyses were performed to
evaluate bus voltages and short circuit currents while the
place and the size of the DG connection in the system
are varied. Voltages and currents obtained from the
system without DG were taken as reference values to
compare with other scenarios.


A. Radial Type

The radial test system used in the simulation is shown
in Fig. 1. Different operating scenarios of DG
connections were considered as follows:
Case 1, a DG unit consisting of 6 parallel
synchronous generators of 5 MW was
connected to buses 4,5,6, and 7 respectively (a
30 MW DG at one bus).
Case 2, a DG unit consisting of 3 parallel
synchronous generators of 5 MW was
connected to buses 4 and 7 (a 15 MW DG at
two buses).
Case 3, a DG unit consisting of a 5MW
synchronous generator was connected to all
buses in the system (a 5MW DG at 6 buses).






Fig. 1. 33 kV radial type test system.
Since synchronous generators can be controlled in
two manners, both voltage control (VC) and power
factor (PF) control modes were simulated for each case.
The controller set points were fixed at 1 for both modes,
corresponding 1pu voltage and unitary power factor,
respectively.

Table I shows the bus voltages for all operating
scenarios when generators were equipped with power
factor control mode. Reference bus voltages (no DG
case) are already acceptable ( 5% of 1pu). As we can
see from Table I, including DG in different cases did not
cause any voltage rise. As the DG units were located far
away from the external grid, more desired values of
voltages were obtained. The best bus voltages were
yielded when generating sources were shared along the
buses (Case 3, last column in Table I).

TABLE 1
BUS VOLTAGES (pu) FOR DG WITH PF CONTROL AT
DIFFERENT LOCATIONS
Bus
#
N
o

D
G

D
G

a
t

7

D
G

a
t

6

D
G

a
t

5

D
G

a
t

4

D
G

a
t


4

a
n
d

7

1
5

M
W

e
a
c
h

D
G

a
t

2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6

a
n
d

7












5

M
W

e
a
c
h

1 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050
2 1,049 1,049 1,049 1,049 1,049 1,049 1,049
3 1,012 1,026 1,027 1,028 1,029 1,029 1,028
4 0,989 1,014 1,016 1,019 1,020 1,021 1,016
5 0,980 1,011 1,014 1,017 1,010 1,015 1,011
6 0,975 1,012 1,016 1,013 1,006 1,014 1,009
7 0,975 1,015 1,014 1,011 1,004 1,015 1,008

After seeing that the desired voltage profiles were
obtained when DG was located far away from the grid
and distributed along the line, control mode of the
generators were selected as voltage control mode. A
comparison of bus voltages for these cases is presented
in Fig. 2. We can realize that improved bus voltages
were obtained in both scenarios; DG located at bus 7
with voltage control and DG located at six buses with
power factor control.

Fig. 2. Voltage profile for DG with voltage control and power
factor control.


In the radial system, middle point buses (buses 4 and
5) were considered critical buses, as they are half way
away from the grid and between DG locations.
Therefore, faults were created at these buses. Three
types of faults were simulated, 3 phase-fault, phase-
phase fault and phase-ground fault. The fault currents are
calculated according to VDE standards using the
simulation program. Short circuit currents for case 2 and
3 are compared at Table II .


TABLE II
COMPARISON OF FAULT CURRENTS (kA) FOR RADIAL
SYSTEM
Fault
Types
DG
Connection
Faulty bus
4 5
3 Phase
No DG 4,09 3,19
DG at 4 and 7,
15 MW each
6,40 5,04
DG at 2,3,4,5,6
and 7,
5 MW each
5,79 4,76
Phase-
Phase
No DG 3,54 2,76
DG at 4 and 7,
15 MW each
5,54 4,37
DG at 2,3,4,5,6
and 7,
5 MW each
5,01 4,12
Phase-
Ground
No DG 2,51 1,95
DG at 4 and 7,
15 MW each
2,95 2,29
DG at 2,3,4,5,6
and 7,
5 MW each
2,85 2,25

It is a known fact that the existence of DG increases
the short circuit currents. This is also evident for each
types of fault in Table II. Highest fault current values
were obtained for 3 phase fault case. We can also see
that the more connection points of DG in the system, the
lower values of short circuit currents. DG contributes to
fault currents significantly. The increment can be seen
clearly from 3 phase-faults. This affects the system
protection scheme.


B. Loop Type

In a loop type distribution system, power flow is not
one direction. Seen in Fig.3, a 33 kV loop type test
system was simulated to obtain voltage profile when DG
location is varied. The connecting scenarios of DG were
selected as 30 MW DG at Bus3, 30 MW DG at bus 5,
and 15MW DG at buses 3 and 5.


Fig. 3. 33 kV loop type test system.


Fig.4 shows the bus voltages when a total amount of
30 MW DG was included in the loop system. Although
higher voltage profile is seen in the case of DG at bus 3,
the case of shared sized DG at two connection points
provides better profile around 1.0 pu


Fig. 4. Voltage profile with different size and location of DG for
loop system.
From previous studies presented in this paper, it was
found that dispersedly located DG resulted in a better
voltage profile which was used as the base case for fault
analyses in the loop system. Therefore, three phase faults
were created at buses 3,4 and 5 respectively in the case
of two 15MW DG existence. The results of short circuit
analysis for these cases are given in Table III. As
expected, fault currents decrease as the fault location
gets far away from the grid. 3 phase fault currents
significantly increased in the presence of DG. From the
table, the impact of DG seems less when the fault
location is near the grid. The value of fault current at
bus 3 increased %82.62 whereas it increased %164.18 at
bus 5.

TABLE III
COMPARISON OF FAULT CURRENTS (kA) FOR LOOP SYSTEM
Bus
#
3 Phase Fault Currents
No
DG
DG at 3
and 5, 15 MW
each
Increment
(%)
3 7,710 14,080 82,62
4 5,740 9,900 72,47
5 3,350 8,850 164,18


C. Network Type

Despite of being the most reliable type, network
distribution system has more complicated protection
planning. Fig. 5 is used as a test system. Additional
information for the system is included in Table IV.



Fig. 5. 34.5 kV network type test system.







TABLE IV
LOAD INFORMATION FOR NETWORK TYPE TEST SYSTEM
Bus # P (MW) Q (MVAr)
3.1 19,00 0,40
4.1 19,00 0,70
5.1 15,20 1,80
5.2 14,20 1,66
5.3 16,05 1,80
6.1 24,00 0,40
7.1 18,00 0,20
7.2 18,00 1,50
8.1 0,00 0,00
9.1 20,00 2,00
10.1 19,00 2,10
11.1 18,60 0,30
11.2 7,30 1,70
12.1 13,00 2,70


Several buses were considered critical buses by
checking power flow analysis of network type system
without DG. Therefore, these buses (buses
5,6,7,10,11,12) were selected as DG locations. In each
case, 20 MW DG was included in the system step by
step. In other words, system had a total of 120 MW DG,
when six 20 MW DGs were located at six buses. So, the
number of DG connection points was varied along with
the total size of DG in the system. Fig.6 shows the bus
voltage profile for each scenario.



Fig. 6 Voltage profile with different size and location of DG for
network system.



As the size and number of connection points
increased, voltage profile raised to higher values. This
shows that within the system, dispersedly located DG
has more contribution to voltage profile than DG located
at single point. As mentioned in radial type, this
contribution has mostly positive effects.
When the system has a total amount of 120 MW DG
located at six buses, three phase fault currents were
calculated at different fault locations. The results of
network system without DG seen in Table V resembles
with the results of loop system without DG. The number
of connection points of DG has different effects
depending on the fault location. Increase in fault currents
due to DG connection in the system is not as big as the
case in the loop system. A strong grid connection is one
of the causes of this situation.


TABLE V
COMPARISON OF FAULT CURRENTS (kA) FOR NETWORK
SYSTEM
Bus
#
3 Phase Fault Currents
No DG
DG at 5,6,7,10,11 and 12,
20 MW each
Increment
(%)
7 13,18 16,27 23,4
8 10,2 12,03 17,9
10 9,17 12,32 34,4
12 8,44 10,83 28,3


IV. CONCLUSIONS

DG applications in different types of distribution
systems are investigated in terms of voltage profile and
short circuit current. A number of cases are simulated
while changing the size and location of DG in the
system. The following conclusions can be drawn from
this study.
Dispersedly located DG results in better voltage
profile compared to single spot located DG.
Short circuit capacity of grid where distribution
system is connected is a determining factor at the
level of fault currents. If a distribution system has a
strong grid connection, fault currents may not
significantly increase with the addition of DG.
A number of DG having a unitary power factor
control should be located along distribution system so
that better voltage profile is obtained.

V.REFERENCES
[1] M. Thomson, D.G. Infield, Network Power-Flow Analysis for
a High Penetration of Distributed Generation, IEEE Trans
Power Systems,vol.22, pp.1157-1162, Aug. 2007.
[2] Power Factory Manual, Version 13.2, 2007.
[3] Working Group on Distributed Generation Integration,
Summary of Distributed Resources Impact on Power Delivery
Systems, IEEE Tran on Power Delivery, vol.23, pp.1636-
1643, July 2008.
[4] T. Ackermann, G. Anderson and L. Sder, Distributed
Generation, A Definition, Electric Power Systems Research,
vol.57, pp.195-204, 2001
[5] IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with
Electric Power Systems, IEEE 1547-2003 Std. July 2003
[6] W. Freitas, J.C.M.Vieira, A. Morelato, L.C.P. da Silva, V.F. da
Costa, F.A.A. Lemos, Comparative Analysis Between
Synchronous and Induction Machines for Distributed
Generation Applications, IEEE Trans Power Systems,vol.21,
pp.301-311, Feb. 2006
[7] N. Nimpitiwan, G. T. Heydt, R. Ayyanar, S. Suryanarayanan,
Fault Current Contribution from Synchronous Machine and
Inverter Based Distributed Generators, IEEE Trans. Power
Systems, vol. 22, pp.634-641, Jan 2007

VI.BIOGRAPHIES
Fatih M. Nuroglu received his B.Sc. degree from Istanbul
Technical University, Turkey, in 1992, M.S. degree from the
Pennsylvania State University in 1997 and is currently pursuing a
Ph.D. degree at Kocaeli University. His area of interest is power
system analysis, distributed generation, power system protection

Ayen B. Arsoy received her B.Sc. degree from Istanbul Technical
University, Turkey, in 1992, M.S. degree from the University of
Missouri- Rolla in 1996, and Ph.D. degree from Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University in 2000, all electrical engineering. She is
currently an Assistant Professor at Kocaeli University, Turkey. Her
research interests include power system analysis, distributed
generation, energy storage and power electronics applications in power
system and power system protection.