1
Overcurrent Protection Issues for Radial
Distribution Systems with Distributed
Generators
Karen L. Butler-Purry, Senior Member, IEEE, Hamed B. Funmilayo
Abstract— The integration of distributed generators (DGs)
into distribution systems is being proposed as a solution to meet
increasing load demands and to utilize more renewable energy.
Existing overprotection schemes must be modified to address the
new system characteristics of radial distribution systems with
DGs. Minimum “off-the-shelf” overcurrent protection devices
and distributed generators were added to the 123 Nodes Radial
Test feeder. A commercial power systems analysis tool was used
to determine the coordination issues that arise in the distribution
system due to the integration of DGs. The results of these studies
are presented and discussed.
Index Terms-- Power distribution protection, Overcurrent
protection, Power distribution lines, Software tools.
I. INTRODUCTION
W ITH the proposed migration to the inclusion of
distributed generation in distribution systems, it is
critical that the protection schemes be adapted to address
these new and very different system characteristics. The
impact of the integration of DGs in radial distribution systems
on the coordination of existing overcurrent protection
schemes were studied using the IEEE 123 Nodes Radial Test
Feeder [1]. Overcurrent protective devices and distributed
generators were added to the test feeder. Coordination studies
were performed on the feeder with and without distributed
generators. This presentation will discuss the findings of these
studies.
II. OVERCURRENT PROTECTION FOR 123 NODES RADIAL TEST
FEEDER
The IEEE 123 Node radial test feeder consists of 1-phase,
2- phase and 3-phase lines. The system operates on a 3.86
MVA base with a 115/4.16 kV substation transformer rating
and a 4.16/4.16kV transformer rating downstream of the
feeder. The circuit is characterized by 85 spot loads modeled
as constant power, impedance, and current loads. The spot
loads are combined as 1-phase, 2-phase, and 3-phase loads.
The total load is 3.524 KW. There are four voltage regulators
This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation
under Grant ECS-02-18309.
Dr. Karen. L. Butler-Purry and H. B. Funmilayo, are with the Electrical and
Computer Engineering Department, Texas A&M University, TX. 77843 USA.
(Emails: klbulter@ece.tamu.edu, hfunmilayo@gmail.com)
978-1-4244-4241-6/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE
at specific locations on the feeder. A total of eleven switches,
six of which are normally closed labeled as sw # and the
remaining five are normally open, provide the feeder with
different configuration options. Fig.1 illustrates the test feeder
with the added OCPDs.
The fuse saving OCP scheme of the radial feeder in Fig. 1
includes a recloser on the main and 29 fuses on the existing
laterals. The defined protection zone for each fuse
corresponds to the lateral on which the fuse is placed. The
number following the letter(s) indicates the lateral number
with the exception of the underground line fuse (F-UG) and
capacitor bank fuses (FC18, FC21, and FC22). Three laterals
have reclosers (RL1, RL2, and RL4) instead of fuses because
none of the fuses in the protective device database in
DIgSILENT would satisfy the minimum and maximum fault
requirements for these laterals. These reclosers were set to
operate on a delayed curve only [2] and were coordinated
with the feeder recloser. Table I provides the list of protection
devices added to the IEEE 123 nodes radial test feeder and
their settings. The first and second columns give the names of
the nodes which demarcate the locations of the protective
devices. The third column provides the names of the
protective devices, while the fourth column shows the devices
manufacturer’s names. The remaining columns show the
settings for each of the protective devices. Fuse F25 and F29
are three single phase fuses on the 3-phase laterals of the
feeder while F11 consist of two single phase fuses for the 2-
phase (phases A and B) lateral.
The OCPDs on a radial distribution feeder normally
operate on steady state fault current since the feeder is
inherently passive. The generation and transmission systems
are farther away from the feeder such that any transients from
the generation system would have decayed over a period of
time before the fault reaches the distribution feeder. However,
when DG is added to the feeder lateral, generation is closer to
the load and large transients may occur during a fault on the
feeder.
Depending on the DG penetration level (size) on the
laterals, the fuses may be subject to unnecessary damage
especially during a fault. Three OCP problems that arise
include fuse fatigue, nuisance fuse blowing, and fuse
misoperation[3], [4]. Fig. 2 illustrates how these OCP
problems develop after adding DG to a lateral of a feeder.
 2

32 29 25 0 35 0
30 51 11 1 11 0 11 2 11 3 11 4
33 25 1
28 50 15 1 30 0
31 49
10 9 10 7
25 47
48 46
26 10 8 45 1
27 45 10 6 10 4
64
44 43 65 10 3
23 45 0
10 5 10 2
63 10 0
24 42 41
66 10 1
21 99
40 98 71
22 62 19 7
39 70
38
35 36 97 69
19 13 5
20 18 68 75
37 16 0 67
60 74
73
14 57
11 58
59 72 85
61 79
61 0
9
53 54 77 78
2 10 52 56
15 2 55 76
8 13
7 80
94 84
96 76
14 9 1 34 88
12 90 81
15 0 17 92

15 87 86 83
95 91 89 82
3 5 93
6 16
4 19 5

Fig. 1. IEEE 123 Node Test feeder with overcurrent protective devices (Modified from [1])

TABLE I infeed current from the DG ( I DG ). The recloser current

OVERCURRENT PROTECTION DEVICES SETTINGS ON THE IEEE 123 NODE
TEST FEEDER ( I REC ) is a function of the substation, the FUSE1 current
From To Protective Nomenclature Manufacturer's I rated I asymetric ( I FUSE1 ) is a function of the DG, and the FUSE2 current
Node Node Device Type Name (A) (KA)
1 149 R main SEL351R* SEL 800 12.00 ( I FUSE 2 ) is a function of the substation and infeed current
1 2 RL1 SEL351R* SEL 60 12.00 from the DG. The OCP problems may arise as a result of
1 6 RL2 SEL351R* SEL 60 12.00 the redistributed fault current and other factors such as DG
8 11 F3 DOMF3-150 Dominion 150 9.85
8 12 RL4 SEL351R* SEL 60 12.00
penetration level.
13 17 F5 R400TL-80E Westinghouse 80E 9.78
18 20 F6 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
21 22 F7 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
23 24 F8 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
26 32 F9 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
27 33 F10 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17
35 39 F11 DOMF3-150 Dominion 150 9.85
40 41 F12 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17
42 43 F13 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17
44 46 F14 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17
57 59 F15 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
67 71 F16 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
72 75 F17 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
76 85 F18 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
87 88 F20 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17
89 90 F21 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17
91 92 F22 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17 Fig. 2 A Portion of a Typical Radial Feeder with a DG, Recloser, and
93 94 F23 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17 Fuses
95 96 F24 NEMAT-50T Cooper 50T 8.17
97 450 F25 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00 Fuse fatigue or damage arises when the fuse link begins
101 104 F26 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
105 107 F27 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00
to melt before the recloser’s fast operation [5]. The
108 114 F28 DOMF3-100 Dominion 100 10.00 occurrence of fuse fatigue may reduce the lifetime of the
47 48 F29 R400TL-65E Westinghouse 65E 9.78 fuse but will not cause the fuse to blow or result in a
permanent outage. As the DG penetration level increases
For the given fault at the location shown in Fig. 2, two the fault current through FUSE2 may increase as well. The
sources (the substation/Grid and the DG) now supply the lateral may therefore suffer a permanent outage during a
fault current. Therefore, the currents through the OCPDs fault which may be potentially temporary.
now become functions of the substation ( ISUB ) and the The nuisance fuse blowing issue occurs when the infeed
current from the DG causes the fuse to operate on the MC
 3

curve prior to the recloser’s fast operation during a fault. TABLE II

SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR PARAMETERS FOR DG UNITS
Hence if the fault were temporary, this would be an
Generator Generator Size (MVA)
incorrect operation and cause an unwarranted permanent
Parameter 0.406 1.075 2.5 3.85
outage.
Vn (Voltsrms) 460 460 460 460
In the radial feeder, the protection zone for a fuse is the
Freq (hz) 60 60 60 60
lateral and a fuse would operate to isolate all faults on the
T d' (s) 0.080 0.185 0.330 3.300
lateral protected by the fuse. However when the DG is
Td'' (s) 0.019 0.025 0.030 0.015
added to the feeder lateral, the feeder is no longer radial
Tq'' (s) 0.019 0.025 0.030 0.050
and the fuse may operate for faults outside the lateral (on
xd (pu) 2.900 2.890 2.400 2.320
the main or on other laterals). This condition is known as
xd' (pu) 0.170 0.250 0.200 0.260
fuse misoperation. The occurrence of the three described
xd''(pu) 0.120 0.170 0.150 0.160
issues will affect the reliability of the feeder during
xq (pu) 2.440 1.720 1.770 1.180
temporary or permanent faults.
xq'' (pu) 0.340 0.290 0.260 0.26*
xl (pu) 0.070 0.080 0.050 0.150
III. DISTRIBUTED GENERATION MODEL
H (s) 0.194 0.322 0.347 1.010
DG is defined as a subset of Distributed Resources Rs (pu) 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003*
(DR) that may be employed in smaller capacities as micro
(~1W < 5kW), small (5kW < 5 MW), medium (5 MW < 50
MW), and large (50 MW < 300 MW). DG technologies IV. STUDIES AND RESULTS
include photovoltaics, wind turbines, fuel cells, small and
micro-sized turbine modules, sterling-engine based Coordination studies were performed using DIgSILENT
generators, and internal combustion engine generators [6]. Powerfactory software [11] to identify the three
Many of these technologies use renewable energy overcurrent protection issues caused by the inclusion of
resources. DG can serve as a viable option to provide DGs. Two cases are presented which describe the nuisance
additional substation and feeder capacity in anticipation of fuse blowing and fuse fatigue issues as conveyed in the
future load growth. Some immediate benefits of operating 123 Nodes Radial Test Feeder.
DG in parallel with the feeder include reduction of feeder
A. Case 1
power losses and Transmission & Distribution (T&D)
costs. In one of the studies, a temporary L-G fault was placed
In the studies reported in this presentation, DGs were downstream of a single phase fuse (F10) on a 1-phase
added at two locations on the 123 Nodes Radial Test lateral (phase A type). The fault was initiated at 0.01
feeder as shown in fig. 1. Each DG operates in parallel seconds with a 10 cycle duration. During the temporary
with the feeder through an isolated transformer connected fault duration, it is expected that the feeder recloser will
in a delta-delta configuration. The kVA rating of the trip to clear the fault and prevent F10 from melting before
transformer matched the DG kVA rating. The synchronous the recloser’s fast operation began. Fig. 3 provides the
generator represents the most prevalent type of DG and operation of F10 and the feeder recloser during the fault
therefore was used in the studies as the DG model. The period. Here the status of the fuse remained at 1 and
synchronous, transient, sub-transient and zero sequence changed to 0 when melting began. As shown, after the fault
reactance were taken from [3],[8]. The generator was was initiated, R opened at 0.053 seconds and closed at
chosen to be power factor controlled (PQ) with an initial 0.220 seconds. However, F10 became fatigued at 0.053
power factor of 0.854 [9]. seconds, around the same time the feeder recloser began its
Table II shows the parameters for the four sizes of fast operation.
DGs used in the studies. The first column gives the name
and unit of the generator parameters. The remaining
columns show the generator parameter for each of the four
generators. The subtransient quadrature reactance (xq’’)
and the stator resistance (Rs) were not available in [10] for
the 3.85MVA DG. Therefore the two parameters were
duplicated from the 2.5MVA DG.

Fig. 3. Fuse fatigue on F10 of 123 Nodes Radial Test Feeder
B. Case 2
In another scenario in which nuisance fuse blowing was
investigated, a L-G fault downstream of F14 caused the
fuse to blow prior to the feeder recloser completing its first
operation. This situation occurred when the maximum DG
size was placed on the feeder as well. The illustration in
Fig. 4 shows the operation of F14 and the feeder recloser,
while Fig. 5 shows the fault current through F14 during the
nuisance blowing situation. As the fault is initiated at
0.01seconds, R opened at 0.045seconds and reclosed at
0.211 seconds. However, F14 blew at 0.171 seconds. The
vertical axis in Fig. 5 gives the phase fault current through
the fuse, while the horizontal axis corresponds to the fault
current duration in seconds.
Fig. 4 Nuisance fuse blowing on F14 of 123 Nodes Radial Test Feeder
Table III summarizes results of case studies conducted
during maximum fault studies on the IEEE 123 nodes
radial test feeder for the DGs placed at the two locations
shown in Fig.1. The first column of the table provides the
three OCP issues, while the second column gives the
number of issues found on the feeder with the existing
OCP scheme.
4
Fig. 5 Fault Current through the Fuse F14
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF OCP ISSUES ON THE IEEE 123 NODE RADIAL TEST FEEDER
OCP Issues on Total
the Radial Feeder #
Fuse Fatigue 34
Nuisance Fuse Blowing 13
Fuse Misoperation 6
V. CONCLUSION
The IEEE 123 Nodes Radial Test Feeder was modeled
and provided with conventional protective devices and a
fuse-saving overcurrent protection scheme. Load flow and
short circuit analysis studies were conducted on these
feeders using DIgSILENT Powerfactory software to
determine the settings and coordination of the protective
devices. Four sizes of the salient pole synchronous
generator models were then customized in DIgSILENT and
added to the Radial Test Feeders. Coordination studies
were performed to identify overcurrent protection issues
caused by the inclusion of DGs. Two of the issues are
presented. The analysis results are being used to determine
how overcurrent protection must be modified to properly
protect radial distribution systems with DGs.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] "Radial Test Feeders - IEEE Distribution System Analysis
Subcommittee [Online]. Available:
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders.html..
[2] Electrical Distribution-System Protection: Cooper Power systems,
2005.
[3] R.C. Dugan and D.T. Rizy, "Electric distribution protection problems
associated with the interconnection of small, dispersed generation
devices," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS103,
pp. 1121-1127, 1984.
[4] A. Girgis and S. Brahma, "Effect of distributed generation on
protective device coordination in distribution system," in Proc. Power
Engineering Large Engineering Systems Halifax Canada, 2001, pp.
115-119.
[5] Electrical Distribution-System Protection: Cooper Power systems,
2005.
[6] M. Davis, D. Costyk, and A. Narang, Distributed and Electric Power
System Aggregation model and Field Configuration Equivalency
Validation Testing, 2003 [Online]. Available:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33909.pdf.
 5

[7] "SimPower Systems MATLAB Manual 2007," [Online] Available:
www.mathworks.com.
[8] "System Impact Assessment Report Windsor Energy Center," 2007.
[Online] Available:
www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/caa/CAA_SIAReport_2007-281.pdf.
[9] W. D. Stevenson, Jr., Elements of Power System Analysis, Fourth ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982.
[10] "System Impact Assessment Report Windsor Energy Center," 2007.
[Online] Available:
www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/caa/CAA_SIAReport_2007-281.pdf.
[11] DIgSILENT (2007). DIgSILENT PowerFactory Manual [Online].
Available: www.digsilent.com.
Hamed B. Funmilayo (S’04) received the B.Sc degree in electrical
engineering from Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, in 2005 and
Master’s degree in electrical engineering from Texas A&M University in
2008. He was a graduate research assistant at Texas A&M University’s
Power System Automation Lab from 2006-2008. He is currently employed
by Centerpoint Energy. His research includes distributed generation with
emphasis on overcurrent protection. Mr. Funmilayo is a member of Eta
Kappa Nu and the Power Engineering Society.

VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Karen L. Butler-Purry (SM’01) received her B.S. (summa cum laude) in
Electrical Engineering in 1985 from Southern University in Baton Rouge,
LA. She was awarded her M.S. degree in 1987 from the University of Texas
at Austin. She was awarded her Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in 1994
from Howard University, Washington, D.C. She joined Texas A&M
University in 1994, where she currently serves as Associate Head and
Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Her
research interests are in the areas of distribution automation and intelligent
systems for power quality, equipment deterioration and fault diagnosis. Dr.
Butler-Purry is a member of the Power Engineering Society, the American
Society for Engineering Education and the Louisiana Engineering Society.
She is a registered professional engineer in the states of Louisiana, Texas
and Mississippi. She received the National Science Foundation Faculty
Career Award (1995) and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator
Award (1999).