A Review of the Use of

Issues Regarding
Distributed Generators
Vivek Menon, Student Member IEEE, and M.Hashem Nehrir, Senior Member IEEE

Abstract- With falling prices of alternative sources of energy II. PROTECTION ISSUES
like wind turbines and fuel cells and the deregulation of electric
Distribution systems have traditionally been designed as
supply, the use of distributed generation sources at the consumer
radial systems [7], and time coordination of protective devices
end is on the rise. Distribution systems were not designed
at the distribution level is a standard practice used by utilities.
originally to accommodate such energy sources at the load end.
The insertion of a DG downstream of the loads or protection
This paper reviews the concerns of using distributed generators
(DGs) and takes a close look at the issue of unintentional
devices changes the traditionally radial nature of the
islanding. distribution system and hence may necessitate a change in
Index Terms- Distributed generators (DGs), islanding, protection strategy [4]. Some of these protection issues are
microgrid, point of common coupling (PCC).
discussed below.

I. INTRODUCTION A. Fuse-Fuse Coordination

T HE deregulation of electric supply and the emergence of a
new league of generators, e.g. wind turbines, photovoltaic
cells and fuel cells have led to a new field of study, distributed
generation. As per IEEE STD 1547-2003 [1], distributed
generation is defined as electric generation facilities connected
to power systems through a point of common coupling (PCC).
While the addition of DGs to power systems has a number of
advantages, a whole host of new problems also comes along
with them. These problems include protection issues, voltage
and frequency issues, and operational issues. Two important
issues of interest are minimizing the need to modify existing
distribution systems for accommodating DGs [2] and
unintentional islanding. As per IEEE STD 1547-2003 [1], an
island is a condition where a portion of a grid is energized
solely by DGs while that portion of the grid is electrically
separated from the rest of the power system. An unintentional
island according to the above standard, is an unplanned island.
These issues are discussed in detail in the following parts of
this paper. Two methods of islanding detection are discussed
one is based on total harmonic distortion (THD) and voltage
unbalance (VU) technique [9] which is a passive technique and
the other on active islanding detection technique. A new
method using the combination of VU scheme and the active
scheme is proposed. Passive techniques rely on change in
parameters in the DG output during islanding while active
techniques try to shut down the DG in case of islanding by
making the DG unstable. These techniques are elaborated later
on in this paper. The proposed method overcomes the
drawbacks of the THD and VU scheme and the active Fig.
islanding detection scheme.
0-7803-9255-8/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE
Fig. 1 shows a DG connected to a utility distribution system
through fuses. Circuit breakers and other protective devices
have been excluded from the figure for clarity of the diagram.
For a fault occurring at location B, fuses A and B would see
the same fault current injected by the utility grid. Fuse B
should act faster than fuse A to isolate a minimum part of the
system.
Now consider an abnormal condition where the utility grid is
faulted at location A. In this case both fuses see the same fault
current which is injected by the DG. Under this scenario fuse
A should act faster than fuse B to isolate a minimum part of the
system. It is clear that the fuse-fuse coordination requirement
for an upstream fault in the presence of DG, is in contradiction
with the fuse coordination requirement in the absence of DG.
Utility Location A Fuse A
Loaad
g Fuse B
Aocation B
D
DG
0
Q.
I~~
1. DG connected to a utility grid.
B. RECLOSER-FUSE COORDINATION
In rural areas circuit protection is often done by the
coordination of fuses and auto reclosers. Fig. 2(a) shows a

399
radial distribution line feeding a load. For a fault occurring at lines with no downstream power supply sources. But, the
location A, the recloser is normally programmed to make two insertion of the DG could have serious effect on the above
short reclosing attempts, and if the fault persists, it will make a protection strategy.
longer reclosing attempt before it goes to lock out. In a reliable
system the fuse would operate during the long reclosing time
of the auto recloser so that power will continue to be supplied
to the portion of the line between the fuse and the recloser.
Utility Fuse ocation A
Recloser
r-
o
0
(a)
Utility Fuse A was originally planned for.
Reclos
DG(
(b)
Fig. 2 Recloser-Fuse coordination; (a) before insertion of DG, (b)
insertion of DG.
Now consider Fig. 2(b) where a DG is inserted between the
fuse and recloser. On the occurrence of the fault, at the first
reclosure attempt the DG might inject enough current to trip the
fuse. Therefore, even in case of a temporary fault the fuse may
blow leading to a blackout to the downstream of the fuse.
C. RELA Y-RELA Y COORDINA TION
Fig. 3 shows a distribution line protected by the circuit
breakers CB1 and CB2, controlled by relays RI and R2,
respectively. For a fault occurring at location B, in the absence
of the DG, CB 1 and CB2 would see the same fault currents,
and for reliability purposes, relay R2 would trip before relay
RI. This is the conventional protection scheme used on radial
rR7
Location A
Fig. 3. Effect of DG insertion in relay coordination.
Assume that a fault now occurs at location A in Fig. 3.
Again
both circuit breakers see the same fault current which is
injected by the DG. In this case, CB1 should trip before CB2.
However, this relay coordination is in contradiction with what
D. OVER VOLTAGE CONSIDERATIONS [5]
In Fig. 4 a DG source is connected to a three phase line.
CB2 is the CB that isolates the DG from the grid. A fault
occurs between phase C and neutral at location 1, and as a
result excessive current would cause CB2 to trip. Since the DG
is still feeding the faulty system, the neutral is practically
connected to the C phase. Hence, the potential of neutral
essentially rises to that of phase C. If a load is connected
between phase A and the neutral towards the upstream of CB 1,
it will experience a line to line voltage across each phase as the
neutral is at the potential of phase C. This overvoltage could
damage the load [5]. It is therefore necessary that the DG be
aft effectively grounded to avoid such an occurrence [5].
According to [5] for electromechanical DGs, the following
conditions should hold
xo
and <I
x1 xi -
where
X0 = Zero sequence impedance of the DG
Xi = Positive sequence impedance of the DG
Ro = Zero sequence resistance of the DG
400

de
A
H.V
side
Neutral
Fig. 4. Over voltage considerations.
III. VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY ISSUES
Once an unintentional island (defined earlier) occurs, it has
to be detected within two seconds, and the point of common
coupling should disconnect the bus to which the DG is
connected , from the utility grid. Once this happens an island
or a microgrid is formed, where a portion of the grid is
supplied solely by DGs, and the utility has no control over
these supplies. It is essential that the frequency and voltage of
the microgrid be quickly restored after disconnecting from the
utility grid. Getting the frequency and voltage within
permissible limits as quickly as possible and keeping them
there is a technical challenge currently under research world-
wide.
IV. OPERATIONAL ISSUES
Certain operational issues may arise when a DG is connected
to the utility grid. Two important issues are:
1. Nuisance tripping(s). The DG may have no power
export agreement with the utility. Under such a
condition, if a large load connected to the microgrid
goes off, the DG may not be able to reduce its
generation fast enough. This may lead to a power
export for a duration greater than permissible, which
would cause the CB at point of common coupling to
trip. This CB tripping is referred to as nuisance
tripping [6]. Unplanned or unintentional islanding could have severe
2. Maintaining power quality of microgrids. In case the implications [7], some of which are given below.
microgrid is importing a significant amount of power
from the utility, if islanding occurs, there may not be
enough installed capacity to supply all the loads
connected to the microgrid. In such cases loads have
to be selectively dropped to ensure supply of quality
power to critical loads. On the other hand, if the
microgrid is exporting power to the utility grid, the
microgrid voltage and frequency may rise after
islanding. In such cases, proper use of a fast acting
401
dump load or generation reduction may be needed.
V. MINIMIZING THE NEED FOR MODIFING DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEMS WHEN DGS ARE ADDED
The IEEE Standard for interconnecting distributed resources
to electric power systems [1] sets the requirements which the
DGs have to meet before connecting to the utility. The
introduction of new or increased generation can have the
following key effects on the electrical system to which
embedded generation is connected [3].
* Unintentional islanding.
* Increase in fault level which may necessitate
switchgear replacement.
* Alter power flows and voltage profiles: The
insertion of DG affects the local voltage and the
power imported by the local load from the utility.
* System upgrade: The insertion of DG may
necessate upgrading of some system components.
* Switching/control arrangements.
* Protection system and settings.
* Earthing system arrangements.
Among the above issues unintentional islanding is the most
important concern regarding the use of DGs.
Fig. 5 shows a DG source connected to an existing utility
line near a load center. For a fault at the location shown, CB 1
would trip, but the DG may not be able to inject enough
current
to trip CB2. This condition where the portion of the grid in
between CB 1 and the DG is energized solely by the DG (and
the utility has no control over it), is called islanding.
Utility Fault
rpi
iD I rVo
kiDt rNI.
VW%)
Fig. 5. An instance of islanding.
* Line worker safety can be threatened by the DG
sources feeding a system after the primary energy
sources have been opened and tagged out.
* Public safety can be compromised as the utility
does not have the capability of de-energizing the
DG sources energizing the downed lines.
* The voltage and frequency provided to the
customers connected to the island are out of the
utility's control, yet the utility remains responsible
 to those customers.
* Protection systems on the island are likely to be
uncoordinated, due to change in the short circuit
current availability.
* The islanded system may be inadequately grounded
by the DG interconnection.
* Utility breakers or circuit re-closures may
reconnect the island to the greater utility system
when out of phase, causing over currents and CB
tripping.
For safe operation of power systems to which DGs are
connected, unintentional islanding should be properly detected.
There are many proposed ways to detect this condition. In the
next section some common islanding detection schemes will be
explored and the problems associated with each will be
discussed.
VI. ISLANDING DETECTION TECHNIQUES
The islanding detection techniques can be broadly classified
into remote and local techniques [8]. The local techniques can
further be classified into active and passive techniques (see
Fig. 6). Remote techniques for detection of islands are based
on communication between the utility and the DGs. These
techniques have better reliability but are very expensive to
implement and hence uneconomical.
Local techniques rely on the information and data at the DG
site. In active techniques disturbances (e.g., the frequency or
voltage) are introduced in the output of DG. At the instant of
islanding these disturbances cause the microgrid to become
unstable. The instability of voltage or frequency at the
microgrid may cause the DG to shut down and hence stop
energizing the microgrid.
In passive techniques certain parameters of the DG output
are monitored. Normally, a sudden spike is observed in these
parameters at the instant of islanding. These spikes are used as
islanding indicators.
Both active and passive techniques have their drawbacks. If
an active technique is used, then in case of a high DG
penetration (i.e., if many DGs are connected to the utility grid),
these disturbances introduced in the output of DG may have an
adverse impact on the utility grid. In passive islanding
detection techniques, sudden spikes may occur in the DG
signals monitored as a result of major load switching in the
vicinity of DG. These spikes could lead to false tripping of
circuit breakers.
A hybrid islanding detection technique is proposed which
combines the advantages of both active and passive techniques
to eliminate their disadvantages. First the two islanding
detection schemes on which our proposed hybrid model is
based are introduced and their drawbacks are summarized.
The active technique explored in this paper, which is also
called the positive feedback technique, was developed by
Sandia National laboratories, USA [11]. In this technique each
DG is interfaced with the grid through a power electronic
interface which can operate only inside a window of frequency
402
and voltage. If the voltage and/or frequency limits are crossed,
the power electronic interface shuts down. When a DG is
operated with a positive feedback of voltage and /or frequency,
as long as the DG is still electrically connected to the utility,
the positive feedback has no impact on the voltage and
frequency. However as soon as islanding occurs, the positive
feedback pushes the error in voltage and frequency to a higher
value. As the error is increased a certain stage is reached where
the voltage and frequency cross the permissible limits and the
power electronic interface shuts down, and the DG stops
energizing the island.
Islanding detection
Remote techniques Local techniques
Active techniques
]. Passive techniques
J
Fig. 6. Islanding detection techniques.
Two important drawbacks of this technique are:
* If a large number of DGs are connected to the
utility grid, then positive feedback would have an
adverse impact on the utility voltage and frequency.
* The positive feedback does not permit autonomous
operation of the microgrid, meaning that power
supply to any critical loads supplied by the
microgrid would also be interrupted.
In the passive technique, the total harmonic distortion
(THD) in the DG current and voltage unbalance are monitored
[9]. These quantities are defined below.
THD=-() II
I1
where Ih is the rms value of the h,h harmonic component
of current from the DG and II is the rms value of fundamental
component of the current from DG. H is the highest harmonic
under consideration.
Voltage unbalance (VU) V2 =
(2)
V
V1 and V2 are the positive and negative sequence components
of the DG output voltage, respectively.
Under balanced conditions, the THD and VU are both very
small (typically less than 0.05). Whenever there is a change in
loading of the DG, there is a spike in the above quantities [9].
Under normal operating conditions, the DG is either exporting
power to the utility or importing power from it. At the instant
of islanding there is a sudden reduction in loading of the DG if
it was exporting power to the utility or a sudden increase in the
loading of the DG if it were importing power from the utility.
This sudden change in DG loading at the instant of islanding
causes a spike in THD of the DG current as well as in voltage
unbalance. These spikes are used to send a trip signal to the
CB at the point of common coupling.
The drawback of the above method is that if a load switching
occurs in the vicinity of the DG, a false tripping signal could
be sent. It is claimed in [9] that, in the utility connected mode,
the proposed THD and VU techniques would not detect a spike
as a result of load switching. The paper claims that the inertia
of the connected utility grid dampens all these disturbances. In
a simulation study we have shown that if the load switching
occurs close to the DG, there is a spike in both THD and VU
parameters and they could have larger values than those due to
islanding. The power system testbed used for our simulation,
[10], and the corresponding results are given below.
In the model shown in Fig. 7, a 3MVA, 13.8kV, 60 Hz DG
is feeding a radial line, which is fed by a large (1000 MVA)
utility-connected grid. There are two loads in the close vicinity
of the bus to which the DG is connected. Load 3 is (l+j 1)
MVA steady load and load 4 is a (1 +j 1) MVA switching load.
The switching load turns on at 20s and turns off at 25s. CB2
opens at 35s, making an island. Figs. 8,9 show the spikes in the
DG's THD and VU respectively, which occur as a result of
islanding and as a result of load switching. It is clear from
these figures that the spikes in THD and VU due to load
switching in the vicinity of the DG are greater than those due
to islanding. As a result a false tripping could occur.
VII. PROPOSED HYBRID ISLANDING DETECTION TECHNIQUE
A hybrid islanding detection technique is proposed which
combines the advantages of both active and passive
techniques. In this technique, the VU at the DG terminals is
monitored, and if a spike in this quantity is observed, a signal
is sent to the DG to lower its frequency set point from 60 to 59
Hz. The frequency of the supply from the DG is again
monitored 1.5s after the frequency set point is changed. If it
has fallen below 59.6 Hz, then it indicates that the DG is no
longer electrically connected to the utility. Hence, a tripping
signal is sent to the CB at the point of common coupling, and
the frequency set point is changed back to 60 Hz. On the other
hand if the frequency at the DG terminals has not fallen below
59.6 Hz it indicates that the DG is still electrically connected to
the utility and the utility is holding the frequency close to 60
Hz. Therefore, it is concluded that islanding has not occurred
and the spike was due to a load switching. In this case an
islanding trip signal is not sent and the frequency set point is
changed back to 60 Hz. The algorithm for the proposed
technique is shown in Fig. 10. This technique can be
implemented using the THD of the current from the DG as
well as the VU at the DG terminals.
403
Ix. CONCLUSION
This paper presented some important issues regarding the
use of DGs, islanding and islanding detection. Active and
passive techniques used for islanding detection were presented
and their drawbacks were discussed. A hybrid technique was
proposed, which combines the advantage of each method and
overcomes their disadvantages.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the National Science
Foundation Grant ECS-0135229 and by Montana State
University, Bozeman. The comments given by Dr. Donald
Pierre on the paper are acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] "IEEE 1547 Standard For Interconecting Distributed Resources with
Electric Power Systems,"2003.
[2] Y.Zoka, H.Sasaki, N.Yorino, K.Kawahara, C.C.Liu, "An Interaction
Problem Of Distributed Generators Installed In A Microgrid," in
proceedings, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility
Deregulation, Restructuring And Power Technologies (DRPT 2004)
April 2004 Hong Kong.
[3] A.S.Jhutty, "Embedded Generation and the Public Electricity System,"
IEE colloquium on system implications of embedded generation and its
protection and control Birmingham, February 1998.
[4] Adly Girgis, Sukumar Brahma, " Effect Of Distributed Generation On
Protective Device Coordination In Distribution Subsystem," in
proceedings, Large Engineering Systems Conference on Power
Engineering, 2001.
[5] Phil Baker, "Over Voltage Considerations in Applying Distributed
Resources on Power Systems," in proceedings, IEEE Power Engineering
Society Summer Meeting, July 2002.
[6] Wayne G. Hartmann, "How To Nuisance Trip Distributed Generation," in
proceedings, Rural Electric Power Coyonference, May 2003.
[7] R.A.Walling, N.W.Miller, "Distributed Generation Islanding Implication
on Power System Dynamic Performance," in proceedings, Transmission
And Distribution Conference And Exposition, 2001 IEEE/PES,
Volume:2, 28 Oct-2 Nov. 2001.
[8] Jun Yin, Liuchen Chang, and Chris Diduch, "Recent Developments in
Islanding Detection for Distributed Power Generation," in proceedings,
2004 Large Engineering Systems Conference on Power Engineering -
Conference Proceedings ,July 2004.
[9] Sung-Il Jang, Kwang-Ho Kim, "An Islanding Detection Method for
Distributed Generations Using Voltage Unbalance and Total Harmonic
Distortion of Current," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol 19,
No 2, April 2004.
[10] F.Katiraei, M.R.Iravani, P.W.Lehn, "Microgrid Autonomous Operation
During and Subsequent to Islanding Process," IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivenr, v 20, n 1, January, 2005.
[11] G.A.Kern, R.H.Bonn, J.Ginn & S.Gonzalez, "Results of Sandia National
Laboratories Grid-Tied Inverter Testing," in proceedings, 2nd World
Conference and Exhibition on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, 6-
10 July 1998, Vienna, Austria.
 100km transmission DG
line Ii ~~.&V~
(0.01273 Ohm/km 3.8kV 0
0.9337*10A-3 H/km AL 3DMVA CB E IrT-

Utility 12.74*10A-9 F/km) - > 61i'OHz

o
08 lOOh OB
1 L9 3 CB 1003hm CB 10 Ohm PCC
13.8/69kV 69/13.8kV 0.036H Opens 0.036H
1 ;3. e%KV
A r% 1 %
at
1 OOOMVA Load 3
35s 1MW Load 4
X/R=1 5 1IMVAr
1MW
60Hz 1 MVAr
(switc,hes on at 20 s
Load 2 and
0.5MW switc&hes off at 25 s)
0.5MVA
Fig 7. The testbed for observing the effect of load switching and islanding on voltage unbalance and THD.

THD versus time

a
X: 20.01
0.26F Y: 0.2624

X: 25.01
Y: 0.21 34
.),
1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.2 F Spikes in THD due to load switching
I
0
-o
Spike in THD due to islanding
4t
c
D2
C:
CD
0.15 F
_C

.0
X: 3.542
Y: 0.1 089 X: 35.0
Y: 0.1041
| _ Spike due to closing of CB U
0.1 at the point of common coupling(PCC)

0.05

0
u .Iu 4U
Time in sec

Fig 8. Spikes in THD due to load switching and islanding.

404
 Voltage unbalance versus time

U
Xfx.: 25.02
0.05 _- /<Y: 0.05365

0.04 _

Spike in voltage unbalance

a) due to islanding
Spikes in voltage unbalance
.S- due to load switching
C15
0.03 -

M
cr
Z!=
X: 35.01

X: 20.02
Y: 00.2295
a
Y: 0.02012
0.02 -

0.01 [ - X: 3.545
Y: 0.006611 Spike in voltage unbalance due to
closing of CB at the point of common coupling(PCC)

I' _1
Ul.hLuaWmhWLkk
1a. ..,k iII
AA
L.. j I
iii L1hLtLiaLill
Li IJLHJ
..LCiIIC

0Li-
- .__, fi-|.- -

0 C 10 To 25 :30 35 40
Time In sec

Fig. 9. Spikes in voltage unbalance due to load switching and islanding

No Any spike in voltage

unbalance?

es

Change frequency set

point of DG from 60 to 59
Hz and monitor frequency
after 1.5s

End Send trip

signal

Fig. 10. Proposed islanding detection technique

405