4490 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO.
5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019
Grounding the DC Microgrid
Jafar Mohammadi , Student Member, IEEE, Firouz Badrkhani Ajaei , Member, IEEE, and Gary Stevens
Abstract—A comprehensive knowledge of the available ground-
ing strategies and their effects is essential for design, operation, and
protection of the dc microgrid. This paper investigates and com-
pares different dc microgrid grounding strategies that involve the
choice of grounding configurations and grounding devices. The im-
pacts of different grounding strategies on line-to-ground (LG) fault
detection and protection, transient LG fault current magnitude,
leakage current level, common mode voltage, personnel/equipment
safety, system reliability, service continuity, and insulation re-
quirements are thoroughly investigated. LG fault response of a
low-voltage dc microgrid with different grounding devices is stud-
ied by detailed simulation of a realistic study system modeled
in the PSCAD software. The study results indicate that: 1) the
ungrounded, bipolar solidly grounded, unipolar parallel resistance
grounded, and bipolar resistance grounded dc microgrids enable
LG fault ride through, due to the low fault current; 2) the unipolar
solidly grounded, bipolar solidly grounded, diode-grounded, and
thyristor-grounded dc microgrids experience significantly large
transient discharge currents under LG faults; and 3) the unipolar
solidly grounded, diode-grounded, thyristor-grounded, and unipo-
lar low-resistance-grounded dc microgrids provide considerable
steady-state LG fault current which necessitates fast detection and
clearance of faults.
Index Terms—DC microgrid, dc system protection, ground
faults, grounding strategies, overvoltages.
I. INTRODUCTION
IRECT current (dc) microgrids offer many advantages
D over alternating current (ac) microgrids, including higher
efficiency, higher reliability, a minimum number of ac/dc con-
version stages, lower power losses, improved power quality, and
easier integration of dc distributed energy resources [1], [2].
Various aspects of the dc microgrid design and operation have
been studied and reported in the literature. However, the ground-
ing strategies of this emerging technology and the associated
impacts on leakage currents, common-mode voltages, person-
nel/equipment safety, energy supply reliability, and protection
Manuscript received March 1, 2018; revised July 4, 2018; accepted August 20,
2018. Date of publication July 11, 2019; date of current version August 14, 2019.
Paper 2018-PSEC-0158.R1, presented at the 2018 IEEE/IAS 54th Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference, Niagara Falls, ON, Canada,
May 7–10, and approved for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications by the Power Systems Engineering Committee of the IEEE Industry
Applications Society. This work was supported in part by Mitacs, Inc., and in
part by the Green Municipal Fund Granted to s2e Technologies, Inc., and London
Hydro partnership. (Corresponding author: Firouz Badrkhani Ajaei.)
J. Mohammadi and F. Badrkhani Ajaei are with the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Western University, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
(e-mail: jmohamm7@uwo.ca; fajaei@uwo.ca).
G. Stevens is with s2e Technologies, Inc., St. Jacobs, ON N0B 2N0, Canada
(e-mail: gstevens@s2etech.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2019.2928278
0093-9994 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
requirements [3], [4] are not comprehensively investigated. In
this context, the term grounding strategy refers to the choice of
grounding configuration and grounding device, i.e., grounding
impedance.
Technical characteristics of different grounding strategies for
dc traction [5]–[7], dc shipboard [8], [9], and high-voltage dc
(HVdc) transmission [10], [11] systems have been comprehen-
sively investigated. However, the existing literature on dc mi-
crogrid grounding [12]–[19] does not provide a comprehensive
comparison between different grounding strategies. Impacts of
grounding configurations on dc microgrid fault response are
studied in [12]–[16]. However, these studies do not investigate
the impacts of different grounding devices. Advantages and
disadvantages of only reconfigurable grounding strategies, i.e.,
diode and thyristor grounding, are briefly discussed in [17]. In
[18], impacts of dc systems grounding strategies on personnel
safety are investigated. High-resistance grounding strategy is
considered in [19] to enable ground fault ride-through capability
in dc microgrids. None of these studies provides comprehensive
information to enable appropriate grounding system design for
the dc microgrid.
Considering the shortcomings of the existing literature, this
paper performs the following activities.
1) It introduces different grounding strategies, i.e., grounding
configurations and grounding devices, that can be utilized
in dc microgrids.
2) It investigates and reports the effects of the grounding
strategies on line-to-ground (LG) fault currents, leakage
currents, common mode voltages, safety of personnel and
equipment, system reliability, power supply continuity, re-
quired protection strategies, insulation requirements, and
grounding cost.
3) It provides a comprehensive review of the advantages
and disadvantages of different dc microgrid grounding
strategies and makes application recommendations.
This paper also presents the results of simulation studies
focused on the impacts of different grounding devices on the
LG fault response of a dc microgrid. The simulation studies are
conducted using a detailed model of a realistic dc microgrid
in the PSCAD/EMTDC software. The LG fault-induced over-
current and overvoltage stresses caused by different grounding
devices are investigated and compared with each other. Finally,
application recommendations are made based on the results of
the aforementioned studies.
II. GROUNDING OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA
The main objectives of dc microgrid grounding are [2]–[4],
[13], [14], [17] facilitating LG fault detection, maximizing
personnel/equipment safety by minimizing LG fault current
magnitude and common mode voltages, reducing corrosion
MOHAMMADI et al.: GROUNDING THE DC MICROGRID
Fig. 1. DC microgrid topologies. (a) Unipolar. (b) Bipolar.
Fig. 2. DC system fault types. (a) LL. (b) LG.
caused by leakage currents under normal operating conditions,
and minimizing voltage stress on system components.
The design requirements imposed by the aforementioned
objectives depend on the dc microgrid topology (see Fig. 1).
The unipolar topology has a pair of positive and negative polarity
conductors which provide a line-to-line (LL) voltage level 2Vdc .
The bipolar topology has an additional neutral terminal, and
thus provides three voltage levels +Vdc , −Vdc , and 2Vdc [1],
[12], [17], [20]. A detailed comparison of the advantages and
disadvantages of these two topologies is provided in [21]. The
next section highlights the differences between the grounding
strategies of the unipolar and bipolar dc microgrids.
As mentioned above, fault-induced overcurrent and overvolt-
age stresses are important design criteria in dc microgrid ground-
ing. The dc microgrid may experience both LL and LG faults
(see Fig. 2). The large current caused by the LL fault is usually
limited by the system resistances, [14], [17], and is not affected
by the choice of grounding strategy. On the other hand, the LG
fault is more common in dc microgrids and is directly affected
by the grounding strategy. The LG fault reduces the voltage
of the faulted conductor to almost zero and, depending on the
grounding strategy, may increase the voltage of the un-faulted
line with respect to the ground. The arc associated with the
LG fault puts the personnel/equipment safety at risk [14], [17].
This is the reason that detecting LG faults and managing the
associated overcurrent and overvoltage stresses are among the
high-priority objectives of the dc microgrid grounding.
The common-mode voltage is another factor that affects the
choice of dc microgrid grounding strategy. It is the voltage offset
that is common to both polarity conductors, [14], [17], and
is independent of the LL voltage. The common-mode voltage
appears at the neutrals of system components, e.g., loads and
causes loop currents between converters. It causes personnel
safety concerns if it exceeds 60 V [15].
III. GROUNDING STRATEGIES
In this section, characteristics, protection schemes, and ap-
plications of different dc microgrid grounding strategies, i.e.,
grounding configurations and grounding devices, are investi-
gated and compared.
4491
A. Grounding Configurations
Three different grounding configurations are defined for dc
microgrids [22], based on the ground connection types of the
source buses and the conductive parts of the system. These
configurations are identified by double letter names TN, TT,
and IT. The first letter shows how the source bus is grounded and
the second letter shows how the conductive parts are grounded.
The letters T, N, and I represent ground connection, neutral
connection, and isolation from both the neutral and the ground,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 3 [23], [24].
1) TN Configuration: TN is the most commonly recom-
mended grounding configuration for dc microgrids [20]. In
this configuration, the converter middle point is connected to
the ground, and the body of the apparatus is connected to the
neutral and protective earth. The TN configuration requires
low-resistance grounding [17], [23], [24]. High-resistance LG
faults in this configuration should be detected by relays using
over/undervoltage elements [13], or a combination of leakage
current detection and ground potential rise detection [23]. The
TN configuration has been used to supply power to low-voltage
direct current (LVdc) residential, commercial, and industrial
loads [13], [23], [25]. The advantages of this configuration are
as follows [14]–[17], [24]–[27].
1) Minimized touch potential and enhanced safety, due to the
low-resistance return path.
2) The possibility of limiting LG fault current magnitude
using ground resistance at the converter midpoint.
3) Sufficiently large LG fault current to enable fault
detection.
4) Providing a well-defined pole-to-ground voltage and paths
for leakage currents.
5) No overvoltage stress on equipment insulation.
The drawback of the TN configuration is large current tran-
sients under low-resistance LG faults, due to the low-resistance
return path [14], [17], [24].
2) TT Configuration: In a TT configuration, both the con-
verter middle point and the body of the apparatus are grounded
at multiple points [17], [22]. This configuration has been used in
LVdc microgrids [13], [25]. Its advantages are as follows [13],
[14], [17], [25]. 1) Easy installation. 2) Reliable and effective
protection against LG faults.
The drawbacks of the TT configuration are as follows [14],
[17]. 1) Circulating currents. 2) Possibility of high voltage
stress.
3) IT Configuration: In an IT configuration, the neutral point
is ungrounded or grounded through a large resistance, and the
body of the equipment is grounded separately [15], [17], [23].
This configuration has been widely used in telecommunication
power systems [24]. IT configuration with large grounding re-
sistance is used in both isolated and nonisolated unipolar dc
distribution systems. This configuration limits the magnitude of
the LG fault currents to safe levels if an appropriate grounding
resistor is chosen [15]. The advantages of the IT configuration
are as follows [14]–[17], [23], [24].
1) Lower current transients under LG faults.
2) Stable operation of loads under LG faults.
The drawbacks of the IT configuration are as follows [14],
[17], [23], [24].
4492 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019

Fig. 4. DC system grounding strategies. (a) Ungrounded. (b) Unipolar solidly

grounded. (c) Bipolar solidly grounded. (d) Unipolar diode grounded. (e) Unipo-
lar thyristor grounded. (f) Unipolar resistance grounded. (g) Unipolar parallel
Fig. 3. DC microgrid grounding systems. (a) TN. (b) TT. (c) IT. resistance grounded. (h) Bipolar resistance grounded.

5) No grounding power loss.

1) Large fault current under a second LG fault. 6) No grounding cost.
2) Need for insulation monitoring. The drawbacks are as follows [5], [6], [9], [14], [17], [28],
3) Challenging LG fault detection due to the small fault [29].
current. 1) Difficult to detect and locate LG faults due to low current.
4) Large LG fault-induced over-voltages. 2) Possibility of significant system damage under LG fault
evolving to LL fault.
B. Grounding Devices 3) Sensitive to noise and disturbances.
4) Small leakage currents causing large common mode volt-
In this section, characteristics, protective schemes, and appli-
age.
cations of different dc microgrid grounding devices, i.e., ground-
5) High equipment insulation level requirement.
ing impedances, are investigated and compared. Fig. 4 shows
LVdc systems can be ungrounded only if the common-mode
the most common unipolar and bipolar dc system grounding
voltage is not sufficiently large to cause personnel safety con-
strategies in terms of the utilized grounding device. These in-
cerns [5], [6], [9], [17], [28]. The neutral terminals of three-wire
clude ungrounded, solidly grounded, diode-grounded, thyristor-
bipolar dc systems rated above 60 V are required to be grounded
grounded, and resistance-grounded cases [13], [14], [17].
[15], [30]. Besides, two-wire unipolar dc systems rated above
1) Ungrounded: An ungrounded system is characterized by
48 V must be grounded. A few exceptions exist including
absence of a grounding device. In other words, an ungrounded
specific systems supplying only industrial loads utilizing ground
dc system is not intentionally connected to the ground [see
detectors [30].
Fig. 4(a)], [5], [9], [14], [17], [24]. Hence, the leakage current
2) Solidly Grounded: In a solidly grounded unipolar (bipo-
and the LG fault current levels are low and the common mode
lar) dc system, the negative polarity conductor (converter neu-
voltage level is high [5], [6], [9], [17], [28]. Ground faults in
tral) is directly connected to the ground [see Fig. 4(b) and (c)],
an ungrounded dc system can be detected by signal injection
[5], [9], [14], [17]. The leakage current and the LG fault current
and handheld detectors [28] or using overvoltage elements that
levels are high and the common mode voltage level is low [5],
monitor the ground resistor voltage [6], [28]. These traditional
[9], [17]. The solidly grounded system is mostly used for middle
methods cannot locate the fault [28]. The fault locating methods
point grounding in bipolar dc systems rather than negative pole
that require system shutdown eliminate the main advantage of
grounding in unipolar dc systems, because of the corrosion
ungrounded power system in handling LG faults and also require
caused by leakage currents [13], [17]. Conventional protection
time-consuming maintenance [6], [28].
relays are used for high-speed LG fault detection [9].
The advantages of the ungrounded dc system are as follows
The advantages of the solidly grounded dc system are as
[5], [9], [17], [28], [29].
follows [5], [9], [29].
1) Low LG fault current.
1) High safety due to low common mode voltage.
2) Power supply continuity in case of a single LG fault.
2) Limited overvoltages.
3) Minimized dc leakage current and corrosion.
3) Low insulation level requirement.
4) Simple implementation.
4) Low grounding cost.
MOHAMMADI et al.: GROUNDING THE DC MICROGRID
5) Easy to detect and clear LG faults.
6) Grounding system absorbing and filtering disturbances.
The drawbacks are as follows [5], [9], [29]. 1) High LG fault
current. 2) Lower power supply reliability. 3) Risk of damage to
equipment. 4) Interference with communication systems due to
larger LG fault currents.
3) Diode Grounded: In a diode grounded dc system, the
negative pole is directly grounded using an array of paralleled
diodes, as shown in Fig. 4(d). This grounding strategy allows
current to flow only from the ground to the negative pole when
the voltage across the diode(s) exceeds some threshold value
[17]. Under normal conditions, the dc system is ungrounded to
minimize leakage. It automatically becomes grounded when the
common-mode voltage is higher. After the LG fault is cleared,
the system immediately returns to ungrounded operation mode
[5]. The leakage current and LG fault current levels are moder-
ate/high and the common mode voltage level is moderate/low
[5], [17]. A directional overcurrent protective element is used
to detect large LG fault currents [5]. The advantage of the
diode-grounded dc system is reducing the common mode volt-
age [9]. The drawback is requiring a periodical maintenance
as corrosion due to leakage current is not completely eliminated
[7]. The reason is that, under normal operating conditions, small
magnitudes of voltage difference between the negative pole and
ground causes the diodes to conduct [5], [6].
4) Thyristor Grounded: In a thyristor-grounded dc system,
the negative pole is directly grounded using a thyristor [see
Fig. 4(e)] [5], [17]. It actively controls the grounding condition
by firing the thyristor when the negative polarity voltage exceeds
a preset value with respect to the ground, as detected by an over-
voltage protective element. Under normal operating conditions,
the system is ungrounded and leakage current is minimized.
The current passing through the grounding device is monitored
using a current sensor, and the system returns to ungrounded
mode whenever the current drops to a normal level again. If
the current remains high, the LG fault is detected and circuit
breakers are tripped. The leakage current and LG fault current
levels are moderate/low and the common mode voltage level
is moderate/high [5], [17]. Therefore, both the leakage current
concern and the common-mode voltage issue are addressed
simultaneously using the thyristor grounding strategy [17].
The pickup setting of the overvoltage relay (59) may be set at
around 60 V, which is the threshold for safe touch potential. This
strategy enables the system to remain ungrounded under normal
conditions until a LG fault occurs and causes the ground-to-
negative pole potential to exceed the 60 V limit [5].
5) Resistance Grounded: In a resistance-grounded dc sys-
tem, the neutral point or one of the poles are connected
to ground using a resistance as shown in Fig. 4(f)–(h) [5],
[9], [29]. Resistance grounding is advantageous in limiting
resonant overvoltages by absorbing the energy of the res-
onance. The resistance-grounded dc system can use high
resistance or low resistance. In either case, the grounding
resistance significantly limits the magnitude of the transient
LG fault current [5], [9], [29].
a) High-Resistance Grounded: The unipolar dc system
grounded by large resistors in parallel, see Fig. 4(g), is referred
to as a virtually grounded system [9], [29]. Sufficiently large
grounding resistors are used to prevent energy loss under normal
4493
operating conditions and also to limit the LG fault current to
almost that of the ungrounded dc system. Due to this small LG
fault current, there is no need for immediate clearing of LG fault.
However, this also makes it difficult to detect faults. Besides, dur-
ing LG faults the equipment connected to the healthy conductor
are exposed to overvoltages [9]. The large grounding resistance
makes the dc microgrid more prone to voltage unbalance and
increases the time that the system takes to return to the balanced
condition after faults and other disturbances [29].
The leakage current is low and the common mode voltage
level is high [5], [9]. The high-resistance-grounded system has
the advantages of both ungrounded and resistance-grounded dc
systems. These advantages are as follows [6], [9], [11], [19],
[28], [29].
1) Low leakage current.
2) Low LG fault current.
3) Capability to operate under LG faults.
4) Power supply continuity.
5) Low grounding cost.
6) High system reliability.
7) Greater safety for equipment and personnel.
The drawbacks are as follows [5], [9], [11], [19], [29].
1) High overvoltages up to 2 p.u. on the unfaulted line.
2) Risk of damage to the system insulation and decreased
power supply reliability due to effects of faults.
3) Difficult to detect LG faults.
4) Susceptible to noise and disturbances.
5) Considerable cost associated with the high-voltage
grounding resistors.
The high-resistance grounding is mostly utilized in dc ship-
board applications and HVdc systems [9], [29].
b) Low-Resistance Grounded: In a low-resistance-
grounded dc system, the neutral point or the negative-polarity
conductor is grounded through a small resistance to limit the
LG fault current to a lower range [5], [9], [11], [14], [24].
The leakage current and LG fault current levels are high and
the common mode voltage level is low [5], [9]. Conventional
overcurrent relays could be used to detect and clear LG faults
as quickly as possible [9]. The circuit breakers should be able
to withstand the largest anticipated LG fault currents [5].
The low-resistance-grounded dc system has the advantages
of reduced overvoltage at the unfaulted line during the LG fault
and low-grounding cost, but suffers from large LG fault current
[5], [9], [11], [29]. Disturbances such as switching harmonics,
nonlinear loads, and electromagnetic interference can inject
currents into the dc system. The low-resistance-grounded sys-
tems, similar to solidly grounded systems, are able to absorb and
filter disturbances more easily than high-resistance-grounded
systems [5], [9], [11], [29]. With a high-resistance path to
ground, a small current can cause a large voltage spike with
respect to ground. The low-resistance-grounded systems miti-
gate voltage spikes from such disturbances.
The characteristics of different dc grounding strategies are
summarized in Table I [5], [9], [11], [17], [29].
IV. GROUNDING DEVICE IMPACT ON LG FAULT RESPONSE
This section investigates and compares the impacts of dif-
ferent grounding devices on the LG fault response of an
4494
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT GROUNDING STRATEGIES
Fig. 5. Single-line diagram of the LVdc microgrid.
LVdc microgrid. For this purpose, simulation studies are con-
ducted on a detailed and realistic study system modeled in the
PSCAD/EMTDC software.
Fig. 5 shows the single-line diagram of the study system. The
LVdc microgrid is developed by converting the IEEE 37-node ac
test system [31] to dc. Table II lists the parameters of the study
system. The LVdc microgrid includes a 1 MW permanent mag-
net synchronous generator (PMSG)-based wind turbine (WT)
connected through a ac/dc voltage source converter to node 709,
two 0.5 MW photovoltaic (PV) generation systems connected
through dc/dc boost converters to nodes 712 and 722, and two
0.4 MW battery energy storage systems (BESSs) connected
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019
TABLE I
through bidirectional buck-boost dc/dc converters to nodes 705
and 707. A 1 MW bidirectional dc/ac grid-tie converter (GTC)
interfaces the dc microgrid with the ac grid through a 0.75/4.8 kV
isolation transformer at node 701. Table III lists constant power
(CP), constant current (CC), and constant resistance (CR) load
data.
Four different sizes of the 1 kV single-core XLPE cable [32]
are used in the study system. The cable size in each feeder section
is determined taking into account the load current, maximum
allowable voltage drop, and maximum acceptable conduction
loss. The positive and negative polarity underground cables are
assumed to be buried 1 m deep, with a horizontal separation of
0.5 m. Table IV list cable length and type for each feeder section.
The cable parameters are given in Table V.
It is assumed that the study system is in steady-state before
a solid LG fault is applied to the positive-polarity of Node 718
at t = 0.2 s. Upon detection of the dc-side fault, the GTC and
the ac/dc converter of the WT are both blocked and discon-
nected from their ac-side sources, to protect the voltage-sourced
converters (VSCs) against potential damages. The dc microgrid
performance under the aforementioned LG fault is investigated
in the following sections by comparing the impacts of different
grounding devices on the LG fault current and the voltages of
the positive and negative polarity cables at the fault location.
A. Ungrounded
Fig. 6 shows the LG fault response of the ungrounded dc
microgrid, corresponding to the grounding strategy of Fig. 4(a).
As expected, the LG fault caused the voltage of the faulted
conductor to immediately drop to zero, forces the voltage of
the unfaulted conductor to rise to about 2 p.u. in steady state,
and causes zero steady-state fault current. However, as shown
in Fig. 6, discharge of the faulted cable stray capacitances and
their interaction with the system inductances lead to transient
oscillations with limited magnitudes and duration. The fault
response shows that the most important concern related to the
ungrounded system is the LG overvoltage on the unfaulted
conductor. Besides, the simulation results confirm the idea that
the dc microgrid can continue to operate under LG faults, as the
LL voltage is not affected by the fault.
MOHAMMADI et al.: GROUNDING THE DC MICROGRID
Fig. 6. LG fault response of the ungrounded LVdc microgrid. (a) Voltages of
the negative and positive poles with respect to ground. (b) Fault current.
Fig. 7. LG fault response of the unipolar solidly grounded LVdc microgrid.
(a) Voltages of the negative and positive poles with respect to ground. (b) Fault
current.
B. Unipolar Solidly Grounded
Fig. 7 shows the LG fault response of the unipolar solidly
grounded dc microgrid, corresponding to the grounding strategy
of Fig. 4(b). Since the negative polarity conductor is already
grounded, the LG fault causes the LL voltage to drop to zero, and
thus causes service interruption. Besides, the solid grounding
provides a path for the large discharge current of the cable stray
capacitances and the converter dc-link capacitors, which is about
80 kA in this case. Fig. 7(b) also shows that the steady-state
fault current in the unipolar solidly grounded dc microgrid can
be significant (16.4 kA in this case), since the dc/dc converters
continue to feed the fault until it is cleared.
C. Bipolar Solidly Grounded
Fig. 8 shows the LG fault response of the bipolar solidly
grounded dc microgrid [see Fig. 4(c)]. Since the midpoint of the
series-connected capacitors is grounded, the capacitors block
the steady-state fault current. Hence, the steady-state fault re-
sponse is similar to that of the ungrounded system. However,
the transient response of the system to the LG fault involves the
4495
Fig. 8. LG fault response of the bipolar solidly grounded LVdc microgrid.
(a) Voltages of the negative and positive poles with respect to ground. (b) Fault
current.
Fig. 9. LG fault response of the diode-grounded LVdc microgrid. (a) Voltages
of the negative and positive poles with respect to ground. (b) Fault current.
large discharge current of the capacitors (51 kA in this case),
which is similar to that of the solidly grounded system.
D. Diode Grounded
Fig. 9 shows the LG fault response of the diode-grounded
dc microgrid [see Fig. 4(d)]. Under the LG fault, the diode-
grounded system essentially behaves as a solidly grounded
system. Therefore, its fault response is very similar to that of
Fig. 7. The only difference is the ON-state resistance of the diode,
which causes a small transient voltage on the negative conductor
when the current passing through the diode reaches about 80 kA.
E. Thyristor Grounded
Fig. 10 shows the LG fault response of the thyristor-grounded
dc microgrid [see Fig. 4(e)]. Comparing the results shown in
Fig. 10 with those of Fig. 9 shows that the LG fault response of
the thyristor-grounded dc microgrid is almost exactly the same
as that of the diode-grounded case. This is because the thyristor
is turned ON as soon as the fault is detected, and a thyristor in
4496 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019

Fig. 12. LG fault response of the unipolar low-resistance-grounded LVdc

Fig. 10. LG fault response of the thyristor-grounded LVdc microgrid. (a) microgrid (Rg = 10 Ω). (a) Voltages of the negative and positive poles with
Voltages of the negative and positive poles with respect to ground. (b) Fault respect to ground. (b) Fault current.
current.

Fig. 11. LG fault response of the low-resistance-grounded unipolar LVdc
microgrid (Rg = 1 Ω). (a) Voltages of the negative and positive poles with
respect to ground. (b) Fault current.
the ON-state is electrically equivalent to a diode with a similar
ON-state resistance.
Fig. 13. LG fault response of the unipolar high (parallel) resistance grounded
LVdc microgrid (Rg = 10 kΩ). (a) Voltages of the negative and positive poles
with respect to ground. (b) Fault current.
fault current. Therefore, choosing the appropriate grounding
resistance involves a compromise between the overcurrent and
overvoltage stresses.

G. Unipolar High (Parallel) Resistance Grounded

F. Unipolar Low-Resistance Grounded
Fig. 13 shows the LG fault response of the unipolar high-
Figs. 11 and 12 show the LG fault response of the unipolar
resistance-grounded dc microgrid [see Fig. 4(g)]. Each of the
low-resistance-grounded dc microgrid, corresponding to the
grounding resistors is assumed to be 10 kΩ. Comparing the
grounding strategy of Fig. 4(f), for two different values of the
results of Fig. 13 with those of Fig. 6 shows that the high-
grounding resistance Rg . As the faulted conductor is discharged
resistance-grounded system behaves almost the same as the
to 0 V, the discharge current is drastically limited by the ground-
ungrounded system. Of course, this single simulation result does
ing resistor. Figs. 11(b) and 12(b) show that the 1 Ω and 10 Ω
not reflect all differences between the high-resistance grounded
grounding resistors reduce the transient discharge current to
and ungrounded systems. There are other considerations, ex-
about 8.5 and 0.5 kA, respectively. These values are about 10%
plained in Section III, that may make high-resistance grounding
and 0.6% of the discharge current experienced by the solidly
more suitable for specific applications.
grounded dc microgrid. This demonstrates the significant impact
of a small grounding resistor in preventing destructive transient
currents. Although the larger grounding resistor more effectively H. Bipolar Low-Resistance Grounded
limits the discharge current, it causes larger overvoltage on the Figs. 14 and 15 show the LG fault response of the bipolar
unfaulted conductor as well as slower decay of the transient low-resistance-grounded dc microgrid, corresponding to the
MOHAMMADI et al.: GROUNDING THE DC MICROGRID 4497

detection, transient LG fault current, leakage current level,

common mode voltage, personnel/equipment safety, system re-
liability, protection capabilities, service continuity, and insula-
tion requirements are investigated and compared. Finally, the
strengths and weaknesses of the various grounding strategies are
summarized.
LG fault response of a dc microgrid with different ground-
ing devices is studied using PSCAD simulations. The results
indicate the following under LG faults in the dc microgrid.
1) The ungrounded, bipolar solidly grounded, unipolar par-
allel resistance grounded, and bipolar resistance grounded
dc microgrids can ride through the faults;
2) The unipolar solidly grounded, bipolar solidly grounded,
diode-grounded, and thyristor-grounded dc microgrids ex-
perience significantly large transient discharge currents;
Fig. 14. LG fault response of the bipolar low-resistance-grounded LVdc
3) The unipolar solidly grounded, diode-grounded, thyristor-
microgrid (Rg = 1 Ω). (a) Voltages of the negative and positive poles with grounded, and unipolar low-resistance-grounded dc mi-
respect to ground. (b) Fault current. crogrids provide considerable steady-state fault current,
which necessitates fast detection and clearance of faults.
Based on the aforementioned results the following conditions
hold.
1) The ungrounded, bipolar solidly grounded, unipolar par-
allel resistance grounded, and bipolar resistance grounded
dc microgrids are recommended for the applications where
continuity of service is a priority.
2) The unipolar solidly grounded, bipolar solidly grounded,
diode-grounded, and thyristor-grounded dc microgrids are
recommended for applications where system components
can tolerate large discharge currents.
3) The unipolar solidly grounded, diode-grounded, thyristor-
grounded, and unipolar low-resistance-grounded dc mi-
crogrids are recommended only if fast protection systems
and circuit breakers are available to detect and clear faults
before the large fault currents damage equipment.
Fig. 15. LG fault response of the bipolar low-resistance-grounded LVdc
microgrid (Rg = 10 Ω). (a) Voltages of the negative and positive poles with
respect to ground. (b) Fault current. APPENDIX
TABLE II
PARAMETERS OF THE DC MICROGRID
grounding strategy of Fig. 4(h), for two different values of the
grounding resistance Rg . Fig. 14 shows that the 1 Ω ground-
ing resistor considerably limits the discharge current (to about
4.3 kA in this case). Besides, the series-connected capacitors
[see Fig. 4(h)] block the steady-state LG fault current. These are
desirable effects of using the low-resistance grounding strategy.
However, Fig. 14 shows that this strategy does not prevent the
voltage of the unfaulted conductor from reaches 2 p.u. in steady
state.
Fig. 15 shows that the LG fault response caused by the
10 Ω resistor is not considerably different from that of the
high-impedance grounded case or the ungrounded case.

V. CONCLUSION
Grounding strategies of dc microgrids affect the leakage
current, the common-mode voltage, energy supply reliability,
personnel/equipment safety, and protection system design. In
this paper, different dc microgrid topologies and ground-
ing objectives are explained. Subsequently, characteristics of
different dc microgrid grounding strategies in terms of LG faults
4498 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019
TABLE III
DC MICROGRID LOAD DATA
TABLE IV
CABLE LENGTHS AND TYPES
TABLE V
CABLE PARAMETERS
REFERENCES
[1] J. J. Justoa, F. Mwasilua, J. Lee, and J. W. Jung, “AC-microgrids versus
DC-microgrids with distributed energy resources: A review,” Renewable
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 24, pp. 387–405, Aug. 2013.
[2] S. Beheshtaein, M. Savaghebi, J. C. Vasquez, and J. M. Guerrero, “Protec-
tion of AC and DC microgrids: Challenges, solutions and future trends,” in
Proc. 41st Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., Yokohama, Japan, 2015,
pp. 5253–5260.
[3] B. Jacobson and J. Walker, “Grounding considerations for DC and mixed
DC and AC power systems,” Nav. Eng. J., vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 49–62, Oct.
2007.
[4] J.-M. Shen, H.-L. Jou, and J.-C. Wu, “Novel transformer less grid con-
nected power converter with negative grounding for photovoltaic genera-
tion system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1818–1829,
Apr. 2012.
[5] D. Paul, “DC traction power system grounding,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 818–824, May/Jun. 2002.
[6] J. D. Park, “Ground fault detection and location for ungrounded DC
traction power systems,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 64, no. 12,
pp. 5667–5676, Dec. 2015.
[7] C.-H. Lee and C.-J. Lu, “Assessment of grounding schemes on rail potential
and stray currents in a DC transit system,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.
vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1941–1947, Oct. 2006.
[8] Recommended Practice for 1 kV to 35 kV Medium-Voltage DC
Power Systems on Ships, IEEE STD 1709-2010, Nov. 2010,
pp. 1–54.
[9] Y. Wang, Z. Yu, J. He, S. Chen, R. Zeng, and B. Zhang, “Performance
of shipboard medium-voltage dc system of various grounding modes
under monopole ground fault,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 6,
pp. 4802–4809, Nov./Dec. 2015.
[10] W. Leterme, P. Tielens, S. De Boeck, and D. Van Hertem, “Overview
of grounding and configuration options for meshed HVDC grids,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2467–2475, Dec. 2014.
[11] M. K. Bucher and C. M. Franck, “Comparison of fault currents in
multiterminal HVDC grids with different grounding schemes,” in Proc.
IEEE PES Gen. Meeting Conf. Expo., National Harbor, MD, USA, 2014,
pp. 1–5.
[12] D. Kumar, F. Zare, and A. Ghosh, “DC microgrid technology: system
architectures, AC grid interfaces, grounding schemes, power quality, com-
munication networks, applications and standardizations aspects,” IEEE
Access, vol. 5, pp. 12230–12256, 2017.
[13] D. M. Bui, S. L. Chen, C. H. Wu, K. Y. Lien, C. H. Huang, and K. K.
Jen, “Review on protection coordination strategies and development of an
effective protection coordination system for DC microgrid,” in Proc. IEEE
PES Asia-Pacific Power Energy Eng. Conf., Hong Kong, China, 2014,
pp. 1–10.
[14] J. D. Park and J. Candelaria, “Fault detection and isolation in low-voltage
DC-bus microgrid system,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 28, no. 2,
pp. 779–787, Apr. 2013.
[15] T. R. de Oliveira, A. S. Bolzon, and P. F. Donoso-Garcia, “Ground-
ing and safety considerations for residential DC microgrids,” in Proc.
40th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., Dallas, TX, USA, 2014,
pp. 5526–5532.
[16] T. Dragičević, X. Lu, J. C. Vasquez, and J. M. Guerrero, “DC microgrids—
part II: A review of power architectures, applications, and standardization
issues,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 3528–3549, May
2016.
[17] M. Carminati and E. Ragaini, “Considerations on DC side grounding
configurations of LVDC microgrids,” in Proc. 5th Int. Youth Conf. Energy,
Pisa, Italy, 2015, pp. 1–6.
[18] K. Hirose et al., “Grounding concept considerations and recommendations
for 400VDC distribution system,” Proc. IEEE 33rd Int. Telecommun.
Energy Conf., Oct. 2011, pp. 1–8.
[19] M. Mobarrez, D. Fregosi, S. Bhattacharya, and M. A. Bahmani, “Ground-
ing architectures for enabling ground fault ride-through capability in DC
microgrids,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. DC Microgrids, Nuremburg, Germany,
2017, pp. 81–87.
[20] H. Kakigano, Y. Miura, and T. Ise, “Low-voltage bipolar-type DC micro-
grid for super high quality distribution,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 3066–3075, Dec. 2010.
[21] J. Mohammadi, F. B. Ajaei, and G. Stevens, “DC microgrid grounding
strategies,” in Proc. IEEE/IAS 54th Ind. Commercial Power Syst. Tech.
Conf., Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, 2018, pp. 1–6.
[22] Low-Voltage Electrical Installations—Part 1: Fundamental Princi-
ples, Assessment of General Characteristics, Definitions, IEC 60364-1,
2005.
[23] Y. Xie, J. Ning, Y. Huang, J. Jia, and Z. Jian, “A review of DC microgrid,” in
Advances in Brain Inspired Cognitive Systems (Lecture Notes in Computer
Science), vol. 7888, D. Liu, C. Alippi, D. Zhao, A. Hussain, Eds. Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
[24] D. Salomonsson, L. Soder, and A. Sannino, “Protection of low-voltage
DC microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1045–1053,
Jul. 2009.
[25] L. Lulu, J. Yong, L. Zeng, and X. Wang, “Investigation on the system
grounding types for low voltage direct current systems,” in Proc. Elect.
Power Energy Conf., 2013, pp. 1–5.
[26] J. Yang, J. E. Fletcher, and J. O’Reilly, “Short-circuit and ground fault
analyses and location in VSC-based DC network cables,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 3827–3837, Oct. 2012.
[27] M. A. Zamani, T. S. Sidhu, and A. Yazdani, “A protection strategy
and microprocessor-based relay for low-voltage microgrids,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1873–1883, Jul. 2011.
MOHAMMADI et al.: GROUNDING THE DC MICROGRID
[28] T. Baldwin, J. Renovich, F. L. Saunders, and D. Lubkeman, “Fault locating
in ungrounded and high-resistance grounded systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1152–1159, Jul./Aug. 2001.
[29] M. Farhadi and O. A. Mohammed, “Protection of multi-terminal and
distributed DC systems: Design challenges and techniques,” Elect. Power
Syst. Res., vol. 143, pp. 715–727, 2017.
[30] Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems, IEEE STD 142-2007 (Revision of IEEE STD 142-1991),
Nov. 2007, pp. 1–225.
[31] IEEE 37 Node Test Feeder, IEEE Distribution Test Feeder Work-
ing Group Report. 1992. [Online]. Available: http://sites.ieee.org/pes-
testfeeders/resources/
[32] General Cable. 600V-28kV TECK90 XLPE/PVC/AIA/PVC Armored
Control and Power Cables. Sep. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.
generalcable.com
Jafar Mohammadi (S’17) received the B.Sc. de-
gree in electrical engineering from The University of
Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran, in 2009, and the M.Sc.
degree in electrical engineering from The University
of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, in 2012.
He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree
with the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
His research interests include protection and control
of power systems especially microgrids and renew-
able energy systems.
4499
Firouz Badrkhani Ajaei (S’12–M’15) received the
B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Tehran
Polytechnic University, Tehran, Iran, in 2006, the
M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from The Uni-
versity of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, in 2009, and the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from The University
of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 2015.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, Western University, London, ON, Canada. His
research interests include protection and control of
power systems with focus on renewable energy systems, microgrids, and dc-ac
grids.
Gary Stevens received the B.Sc. degree in chemistry
and the M.Sc. degree in inorganic chemistry from
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA, in 1980
and 1984, respectively.
In 1984, he joined Texas Instruments in Dal-
las, where he was involved in projects related to
high-reliability power transistors, microcircuits, and
molten silicon refining. In 1997, he joined Matrix
Solar Technologies in Texas (an ATS Automation
holding company), and led several projects related
to silicon wafer cutting and photovoltaic module
manufacturing. In 2001, he joined the Spheral Solar Power division of ATS
Automation, Cambridge, ON, Canada, to manage the IP portfolio and lead R&D
efforts for new processes and product enhancements. He has more than 30 years
of experience in process development and advanced manufacturing of solar
and semiconductor technologies. He holds eight U.S. Patents with numerous
international filings. He is currently a Chief Scientist with s2e Technologies,
Inc., St Jacobs, ON, Canada, where he continues to lead R&D projects focused
on promoting and implementing sustainable technologies worldwide.