IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO.

4, JULY 2017 3237

Generalized Δ-Circuit Concept for Integration of

Distributed Generators in Online
Short-Circuit Calculations
Luka Strezoski, Student Member, IEEE, Marija Prica, Member, IEEE, and Kenneth A. Loparo, Life Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, a novel concept of Generalized can cope with large-scale distribution systems of any com-
Δ-circuit is proposed, that enables integration of distributed plexity, including modern distributed generators (DGs) with an
generators (DGs) based on contemporary technologies into the arbitrary selected fault current control strategies.
short-circuit calculations of large-scale distribution systems. Mod-
ern DG models, such as doubly fed induction generators (DFIGs) SCC is one of the basic Distribution Management System
and three-phase inverter based DGs (IBDGs) differ from the clas- (DMS) power calculations. Its results are necessary for the
sical synchronous and induction generator models. It is shown that development and execution of numerous other applications,
their models cannot be integrated in traditional short-circuit calcu- including: Relay Setting and Coordination, Fault Location,
lation procedures because they include a large number of possible Isolation and Supply Restoration, and Protection Equipment
fault current control strategies. Therefore, the concept of Gener-
alized Δ-circuit is proposed and allows for any control strategy
Selection. The entire range of fault current results obtained
implemented in modern DGs to be integrated in the short-circuit by online SCC is used to provide reliability and selectivity of
calculation procedure. An improved backward/forward sweep the protection system. Hence, an online SCC procedure must
procedure is developed for calculation of the Generalized Δ-circuit satisfy two basic features when large-scale distribution systems
state. The faulted system state is calculated by the superposition are considered: 1) high speed and 2) high accuracy.
of the known prefault state and calculated Generalized Δ-circuit
A SCC method for traditional distribution systems, Equiva-
state. Results show that unlike previously developed online
short-circuit calculations, the proposed method can handle DFIGs lent Voltage Source Method (EVS), is provided in the Interna-
and IBDGs with arbitrary selected fault current control strategies. tional IEC 60909 Standard [1]. However, as shown in [2], doubly
Index Terms—Distributed generation, distribution manage- fed induction generators (DFIGs) as well as three-phase inverter
ment system, distribution system, relay protection, short-circuit based DGs (IBDGs) present particular issues as their models
calculation. cannot be integrated in EVS. In [2], an attempt to extend EVS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS to cope with modern DGs is proposed. However, the proposed
Short-Circuit Calculation SCC solution is not general because the control strategies assumed
Distributed Generator DG for DFIGs and IBDGs were oversimplified and only balanced
Distribution Management System DMS three-phase short-circuits were considered. In [3], [4] a Hybrid
Equivalent Voltage Source EVS Compensation Method (HCM) is used for SCC. This method is
Doubly Fed Induction Generator DFIG based on the compensation technique for solving the loop cur-
Three Phase Inverter Based DG IBDG rents, fault currents and currents injected by synchronous ma-
Hybrid Compensation Method HCM chines. Afterwards, backward/forward sweep (BFS) in the phase
Backward/Forward Sweep BFS domain is used for calculating voltages and currents of every
Improved Backward/Forward Sweep IBFS bus/branch in the system. BFS does not require building and fac-
Single Line to Ground SLG torization of the system’s nodal admittance matrix, which makes
Double Line to Ground 2LG HCM fast and highly effective for large-scale distribution sys-
Double Line 2L tems. However, HCM is not suitable for fault analysis of distribu-
Three Line to Ground 3LG tion systems with modern DGs because it is based on a premise
Threshold TH that synchronous generators are the only active elements. In [5],
[6] SCCs for systems containing IBDGs are proposed and it is
I. INTRODUCTION shown that these methods give good results compared to dynam-
HE objective of this paper is to develop an effective and ical simulations on a small system. However, DFIGs were not
T robust online Short-circuit calculation (SCC) method that discussed in these studies. Moreover, the calculation procedures
in both papers are bus oriented and use the system’s nodal admit-
tance matrix. While this approach is highly effective for trans-
Manuscript received May 24, 2016; revised August 19, 2016; accepted Octo-
ber 7, 2016. Date of publication October 12, 2016; date of current version June mission systems, as shown in [7], it is at least three times more
16, 2017. Paper no. TPWRS-00786-2016. time-consuming than BFS when used for large-scale distribution
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Com- systems. More recent publications [8]–[10] perform SCCs using
puter Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7078
USA (e-mail: lxs533@case.edu; mxp438@case.edu; kal4@case.edu). the superposition theorem. The traditional way of using the
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2617158 superposition theorem for SCC is based on decomposing the
0885-8950 © 2016 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.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3238
faulted system into two separate systems. The first is the known
pre-fault system, while the second is called the Δ-circuit. Thus,
the calculation of the faulted system comes down to the Δ-
circuit calculation. The main characteristic of the Δ-circuit is
that it is passive everywhere except at the fault location, which
makes it easy to calculate. This approach is highly effective and
has been used for years for systems containing only synchronous
and induction machines. In [8], [9] DGs were not discussed at
all. The approach in [10] copes well with synchronous and in-
duction machine DGs and with DFIGs and IBDGs that have
very simplified control strategies. Therefore, it is of limited use
in those applications where DFIGs and IBDGs can implement a
wide range of fault current control strategies [11]. This research
addresses the lack of online SCC methods for active distribution
systems that include DFIGs and IBDGs that implement a wide
range of fault current control strategies.
The SCC proposed in this paper is based on the superposi-
tion theorem. However, it is shown that the traditional Δ-circuit
concept [8]–[10], [12] is of limited use for distribution systems
containing modern DGs. DFIG models for SCC differ with re-
spect to the fault severity and protection scheme used for the
DFIG power converter. They can be modeled either as induction
machines or as ideal current sources [13]–[18]. Thus, an algo-
rithm for deciding which DFIG models should be used, based on
the severity of the fault and the converter’s protection scheme,
is developed in this paper and integrated into the proposed SCC
procedure. IBDGs are modeled as ideal current sources exclu-
sively. There is a wide range of control strategies used in today’s
IBDGs for their injected fault currents. In the general case,
when their fault currents exceed their pre-fault currents, these
models cannot be integrated in the existing SCC procedures.
Therefore, the Generalized Δ-circuit concept is developed in
this paper. Contrary to the traditional Δ-circuit, besides for the
fault location, the Generalized Δ-circuit is active at every bus
where these DGs are connected to the system. Thus, with the
use of the Generalized Δ-circuit, models for modern DGs can
be integrated in the SCC. For the calculation of the traditional
Δ-circuit, an improved BFS (IBFS) procedure is proposed in
[10] and modified in this paper for the calculation of the Gen-
eralized Δ-circuit. The IBFS does not require building and fac-
torization of the system’s nodal admittance matrix and it is
performed in the sequence domain. This makes the proposed
procedure fast and easy for programming.
To verify the accuracy and applicability of the proposed SCC
method, it is first compared with HCM in [3] using a distribution
system without modern DGs. Then the IBFS is compared with
the extended EVS method [2] on the distribution system with
modern DGs. Results show that unlike previously developed
SCC procedures, the proposed procedure, which is based on
the Generalized Δ-circuit model, can handle DFIGs and IBDGs
with a wide range of fault current control strategies. In addition,
contrary to existing SCC procedures, the algorithm developed in
this paper allows IBFS to use the appropriate models for DFIGs
for short-circuits anywhere in the system. These facts make the
proposed procedure effective and significantly more robust than
previously developed online SCC procedures.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In
Section II, distribution system modeling is presented. Section III
presents the Generalized Δ-circuit for SCC. In Section IV, the
Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 4, JULY 2017
key parameters for computing the Generalized Δ-circuit are pro-
vided. In Section V the calculation of the Generalized Δ-circuit
is presented. Results are presented and discussed in Section VI.
The paper is concluded in Section VII.
II. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODEL
A. Transformers, Line Sections, and Load Modeling
In this paper, the equivalent circuit of the distribution system
is considered in per unit domain. Thus, the transformers are rep-
resented with their short-circuit impedances and magnetizing
admittances and line sections are modeled with their Π circuits
[12]. A common practice in SCCs for distribution systems is to
neglect the influence of loads [1], [2]. However, it is shown in
[19] that neglecting loads could lead to unacceptable inaccuracy
when performing SCC for relay protection purposes. The error
regarding currents at the beginning of a feeder, as a result
of neglecting loads can be as high as 20%. Thus, loads are
modeled as constant currents in this paper the currents obtained
from the pre-fault state.
B. DG Modeling
An extensive lists of different DG technologies and ways by
which they are connected to the distribution system are presented
in [2], [10], and [20]. DGs are sorted into four types, considering
their SCC models [2], [10]:
1) Type I – Synchronous DG directly connected to the sys-
tem;
2) Type II – Induction DG directly connected to the system;
3) Type III – DFIG;
4) Type IV – IBDG.
Type I DGs are modeled as ideal voltage source behind
impedance in sub-transient, transient and steady-state time pe-
riods for the purpose of SCC [12]. Type II DGs are modeled in
the same manner, but only in transient and steady state periods
[12]. Models for both Type I and Type II DGs are integrated in
the SCC using the traditional Δ-circuit [10], and they will be
treated exactly the same in the Generalized Δ-circuit. As for
Types III and IV DGs, their models cannot be integrated in the
traditional Δ-circuit. Therefore their operation and models are
explained in detail, as follows.
Type III DG (DFIG) is in most cases used in wind generation.
DFIG’s stator is directly connected to the distribution system,
while its rotor is connected to the system by power converter.
DFIG is the most complex to model. Its short-circuit model
depends on the severity of the fault and on the method used for
the protection of the converter [13]–[18]. The power electronic
devices of the converter are sensitive to the above rated currents,
thus the converter needs to be protected [13]–[18]. There are two
main protection methods: crowbar and chopper [15]–[17].
When the crowbar is used for the converter’s protection,
it short-circuits the rotor’s terminals when the fault is severe
[15]–[17]. If this happens, the DFIG model becomes similar
to the induction machine (Type II DG) [2], [13]–[15]. A sin-
gle difference between these two models is that the crowbar’s
resistance is added in series to the rotor’s resistance. The crow-
bar’s resistance should not be neglected for SCC purposes as
it can be as much as 20 times larger than the rotor’s resistance
 STREZOSKI et al.: GENERALIZED Δ -CIRCUIT CONCEPT FOR INTEGRATION OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATORS IN ONLINE SHORT-CIRCUIT
[13] and [15]. If the fault is not as severe (e.g. if it happens far
from the DFIG), the crowbar will not react and the converter
will continue to control the injected current [15]. In this case,
the DFIG model is the same as the model of the Type IV DG, ex-
plained below. In this paper the severity of the fault is estimated
using the voltage at the DFIG terminals. It is assumed that the
crowbar will be activated if the voltage at the DFIG terminals
falls below the threshold value. If the voltage at the DFIG ter-
minals remains above the threshold, the DFIG will control its
fault current.
When chopper protection is used, better grid support, such
as Low Voltage Ride Through, is achieved during a fault by
keeping the rotor’s converter active, but still limiting the currents
to protect the power converter [15]. In this case, the converter
will continue to control the DFIG’s fault current even in the case
of a severe fault, and it should be modeled in the same way as
the Type IV DG [15]–[17].
DFIGs from different manufacturers could use different con-
trol strategies and different threshold values [16], [17]. However,
with the manufacturer’s information about the control strategy
and protection method used in the DFIG’s power converter, it
can be easily incorporated in the procedure proposed in this
paper.
Type IV DG (IBDG) is used in wind and solar generation, as
well as in micro turbines. It is modeled in the same way, regard-
less of the primary energy source [2], [13]–[17]. The IBDG’s
generator is fully decoupled from the distribution system by
power converter. Therefore, the electrical model of the IBDG
is completely dependent on the control strategy implemented
in the converter. During fault conditions, in order to protect the
power electronic devices, IBDG switches to a current-limiting
mode, with the predefined current limit [15], [16]. Controllers
are set to inject only positive sequence currents, even during un-
balanced faults [15]–[17]. Thus, the short-circuit model of this
type is represented by an ideal current source in the positive se-
quence only [15], [16]. This is a particular issue for the existing
SCC methods which are designed for conventional synchronous
and induction generator models [1]–[4]. In this paper, the two
distinct IBDG control strategies, including DFIGs that maintain
control of the injected fault current, are:
1) Control Strategy I: IBDGs and DFIGs maintain the same
pre-fault currents throughout the duration of the fault;
2) Control Strategy II: IBDGs and DFIGs supply fault cur-
rents which have higher magnitudes and different phase
angles than the pre-fault currents.
Control Strategy I is applied when the fault is not severe
regarding DFIGs and IBDGs and they manage to maintain
their pre-fault controls. In some modern IBDGs [15]–[17]
and some DFIGs with chopper protection [15], controllers
can be set in accordance with this strategy independently on
the fault severity. If the fault is severe and the controllers are
set to supply the fault current different than the pre-fault one
[13]–[18], Control Strategy II is applied for IBDGs and DFIGs.
For the Control Strategy I, the positive sequence current sup-
plied by the IBDG during the fault is:
f pf
IˆDG4 = IˆDG4 (1)
Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3239
Fig. 1. Type IV DG’s short-circuit model.
f pf
where IˆDG4 and IˆDG4 are the IBDG fault current and its pre-
fault current, respectively.
Control Strategy II covers a wide range of control strategies
where IBDGs and DFIGs supply any fault currents, higher than
their pre-fault currents. In most cases the fault current limit is
1-1.5 of their rated currents [15]–[17]. There are many control
strategies that can be applied for the proportion of the real and
imaginary components of the injected fault current [15]–[17].
The control strategy applied in IBDG is either defined by the
Grid Code for the specific country [5], or by manufacturers
[15]–[17]. In this paper, the control strategy is assumed in ac-
cordance with [15], and it is briefly explained as follows. As
it is usually required from IBDG to produce reactive power
during the fault, it is assumed that the real component of the
IBDG’s current does not change from its pre-fault value, while
its imaginary component changes immediately after a drop in
the terminal voltage. Therefore, the positive sequence current
supplied by the IBDG throughout the duration of the fault is
calculated as [15]:
 f   f 
f
IˆDG4 = Real IˆDG4 + j Imag IˆDG4
 
 pf   2
= Real Iˆ DG4 − j (IDG4m ax )2 − Real Iˆpf DG4
(2)
In (2), IDG4m ax is a limit of the current supplied by the IBDG
during a fault. Real corresponds to the real component, while
Imag corresponds to the imaginary component of the current.
Different manufacturers could use different control strategies.
For instance, in [5] it is suggested that IBDG should inject a
purely reactive current with the magnitude of its rated current
during the fault. It is obvious that this control strategy is covered
f
by the Control Strategy II and that IˆDG 4 can be calculated similar
to (2). In summary, as long as the manufacturer provides the
information about the control strategy for the current injected
f
by its DG, current IˆDG4 can always be calculated in a manner
similar to (2). Moreover, if the information about the control
strategy from the manufacturer is not available, this information
should be obtained from the Fault Ride Through requirements
of the Distribution Code of specific country [21]. In that way,
f
current IˆDG4 can be calculated even without manufacturer’s
information. In Fig. 1 the short-circuit model of the Type IV
DG is shown.
In the following text, DFIGs which maintain their control of
the fault current will be treated same as IBDGs. Both of these DG
types will be termed Type III-IV DGs. In addition, their pre-fault
pf f
and fault currents will be marked with IˆDG3−4 and IˆDG3−4 ,
respectively.
 3240 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 4, JULY 2017

TABLE I
EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATING SHORT-CIRCUIT
CURRENTS AT FAULT LOCATION

SLG (phase a) 2LG (phases b, c) 2L (phases b, c) 3LG

Û k a ( Ẑ k− + Ẑ k0 ) Û k a Û k a Û k a
Jˆk+
Ẑ k+ + Ẑ k− + Ẑ k0 Ẑ k+ Ẑ k− + Ẑ k+ Ẑ k0 + Ẑ k− Ẑ k0 Ẑ k+ + Ẑ k− Ẑ k+
Fig. 2. Γ Segment.
Û k a −Ẑ k0 Û k a Û k a
Jˆk− − 0
Ẑ k+ + Ẑ k− + Ẑ k0 Ẑ k+ Ẑ k− + Ẑ k+ Ẑ k0 + Ẑ k− Ẑ k0 Ẑ k+ + Ẑ k−

C. Distribution System Model – Γ Segments Û k a −Ẑ k− Û k a

As the SCC is performed in the sequence domain, the faulted
three-phase system is reduced to three single-phase circuits, for
positive, negative and zero sequences. Since the pre-fault system
is assumed to be balanced, the sequence circuits are decoupled
everywhere except at the faulted bus (bus k). The distribution
system sequence circuits are represented by Γ segments, shown
in Fig. 2.
The sending node is marked with L, while the receiving node
is marked with l. The nodes (and branches) are annotated using
the layer numeration procedure [22]. The loops are treated using
breakpoint nodes. ẑl and ŷl0 are the series and the shunt parame-
ters of the segments; Iˆl and Iˆlo , are their currents; ÛL and Ûl are
the voltages of the sending and receiving nodes of Γ segment,
respectively; Pl represents load’s sequence circuit, while IˆlP
is its current; DGl represents the DG’s sequence circuit, while
IˆDGl is its current. The ground is marked by G.
III. THE GENERALIZED Δ-CIRCUIT
Traditionally, in SCCs, the faulted system state is obtained by
superposition of the calculated Δ-circuit state and the known
pre-fault state [8]–[10], [12]. The pre-fault state is known ei-
ther from the power flow simulation [7] or from the online
state estimation [20], thus SCC is reduced to the calculation
of the Δ-circuit state. The main characteristic of the traditional
Δ-circuit is that it is passive everywhere except at the fault lo-
cation [8]–[10], [12]. All active elements are annulled in the tra-
ditional Δ-circuit. This means that for Type I and Type II DGs,
only their sub-transient, transient or steady state impedances
are kept in the Δ-circuits while their ideal voltage sources are
annulled. The influence of these voltage sources on the fault cur-
rents is recognized from the pre-fault state. At the faulted bus,
ideal voltage sources with the values of their pre-fault voltages
are added in the Δ-circuit. These voltage sources are the only
active elements in the traditional Δ-circuit.
The traditional Δ-circuit concept is not valid in the general
case of the distribution system containing Type III-IV DGs with
a wide range of fault current control strategies. For Type III-IV
DGs with Control Strategy I, their fault currents are completely
obtained from the pre-fault state. This means that the Δ-circuit is
still passive in all buses with these types of DGs [10]. However,
for Control Strategy II, the assumption that the Δ-circuit is
passive everywhere except the fault location is not valid. In this
case, parts of the currents supplied by the Type III-IV DGs
that exceed their pre-fault currents (excess currents) need to
be injected in the Δ-circuit. Therefore in addition to the fault
location, the Δ-circuit becomes active in the buses where these
DGs are connected to the system. As Type III-IV DGs supply
Jˆk0 0 0
Ẑ k+ + Ẑ k− + Ẑ k0 Ẑ k+ Ẑ k− + Ẑ k+ Ẑ k0 + Ẑ k− Ẑ k0
only positive sequence currents, only the positive sequence of
the traditional Δ-circuit is changed. The Δ-circuit obtained in
this way is termed the Generalized Δ-circuit in this paper. The
excess currents of Type III-IV DGs are calculated as follows:
f pf
IˆDG3−4i
+
= IˆDG3−4i − IˆDG3−4i , i ∈ αDG3−4 , (3)
where αDG3−4 corresponds to the set of Type III-IV DGs with
f
non-zero excess currents IˆDG3−4i
+
. IˆDG3−4i is calculated using
(2) for the control strategy assumed in this paper. The pre-fault
pf f
current IˆDG3−4i is known. For any control strategy, IˆDG3−4i can
be calculated in a similar manner to (2) with the manufacturer’s
information about the current limit and the control strategy im-
plemented. If the manufacturer’s information is not available, it
can be obtained from the Distribution Code [21], as explained in
the previous section. Negative and zero sequences of the Gener-
alized Δ-circuit are still passive everywhere except at the fault
location, and there is no need for the excess currents calculation.
Based on the previous considerations, the sequence domain
Generalized Δ-circuit is established in the following four steps:
1) Annul all ideal sources in the phase domain;
2) Insert a series connection of the fault topology and ideal
voltage sources in a faulted bus. Their voltages have to be
equal to the pre-fault voltages of this bus;
3) Insert three-phase ideal current sources with positive se-
quence excess currents in all three-phase busses with Type
III-IV DGs with Control Strategy II;
4) Transform the phase domain Generalized Δ-circuit into
sequence domain.
IV. THE KEY PARAMETERS FOR CALCULATION OF THE
GENERALIZED Δ-CIRCUIT STATE
In this paper, all four solid short-circuits are considered: single
line to ground (SLG), double line to ground (2LG), double line
(2L) and three line (to ground) (3LG). Sequence domain fault
currents at the short-circuit location (bus k) are traditionally
calculated using the equations presented in Table I [9], [10].
Ẑk+ , Ẑk− , Ẑko are sequence domain Thévenin impedances seen
from bus k. Ûk a is the known pre-fault phase a voltage at bus k.
As shown in [10], the influence of the excess currents of Type
III-IV DGs on the short-circuit currents at the fault location is
minor. The error in short-circuit currents calculated using the
equations from Table I is less 2%. Therefore, in order to keep

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 STREZOSKI et al.: GENERALIZED Δ -CIRCUIT CONCEPT FOR INTEGRATION OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATORS IN ONLINE SHORT-CIRCUIT 3241

the simplicity of the well-established equations from this table, In (7) L and l represent sending and receiving nodes of all
these will still be used for calculation of the short-circuit currents Γ segments (Fig. 2), excluding breakpoint nodes. From (6) and
at the fault location in the Generalized Δ-circuit. (7) it is evident that the traditional Δ-circuit state could be
However, the influence of the excess currents on the fault calculated directly by the proposed approach. As a result, there
current flow in the whole system is significant. Neglecting this is no need for the traditional iterative procedure [3], [4], [10].
influence could seriously affect protection equipment settings Control Strategy II: Some or all Type III-IV DGs supply fault
and coordination as well as protection of power converters of currents which are different from their pre-fault currents.
Type III-IV DGs. Therefore, their influence must be considered As established in Section III, the Generalized Δ-circuit is ac-
in the calculation of the Generalized Δ-circuit state – Section V. tive not only at the fault location but also at every location where
Thévenin impedances seen from bus k (Ẑk+ , Ẑk− , Ẑok ) are the Type III-IV DGs with Control Strategy II are connected to
calculated in the following way: annul the voltage source at the positive sequence circuit. Thus, (6a) cannot be used for
the faulted node and annul Type III-IV DG excess currents in calculating the positive sequence of the Generalized Δ-circuit.
the Generalized Δ circuit. Inject a unity current at the faulted It must be calculated by injecting short-circuit currents at the
node, in positive, negative and zero sequence circuits. In each fault location plus injecting the excess currents at every location
of the three sequences, calculate voltages of every node of the of positive sequence circuit where Type III-IV DGs with Con-
sequence circuits obtained in this way and memorize it in the trol Strategy II are connected. In this paper, the original IBFS
following vectors (T indicates the matrix/vector transposition): procedure [10] is modified by injecting the excess currents at
+  T every location where Type III-IV DGs with Control Strategy II
Ẑ k = Û2+ Û3+ . . . Ûk+ . . . Ûn+ , (4a) are connected. The modified IBFS procedure is presented as
−  − − T follows:
Ẑ k = Û2 Û3 . . . Ûk− . . . Ûn− , (4b) Backward sweep:
0  T  Δ + h + 1  Δ + h
Ẑ k = Û20 Û30 . . . Ûk0 . . . Ûn0 . (4c) Iˆl = JˆlΔ + + (JˆclΔ + )h + ŷlo
+
Ûl
The computation of these vectors requires performing three  Δ + h + 1
+ Iˆj + JˆDG3
Δ+
− 4l ,
IBFS procedures [10], for positive, negative and zero sequences.
j ∈a l
These vectors are termed Thévenin vectors since their k-th ele-
ments are numerically equal to Thévenin impedances seen from l = n + p , . . . , 3, 2; (8)
the bus k: Forward sweep:
Ẑk+ (=) Ûk+ ; Ẑk− (=) Ûk− ; Ẑk0 (=) Ûk0 (5)  Δ + h + 1  h + 1  h + 1
Ûl = ÛLΔ + − ẑl+ IˆlΔ + ,
+ − 0
Vectors Ẑ k , Ẑ k
and Ẑ k
will be used for direct calculation l = 2, 3, . . . , n + p; (9)
of the traditional Δ-circuit states for positive, negative and zero
Breakpoint currents correction:
sequence, respectively. The improved calculation of the tradi-  
tional Δ-circuit state as well as the calculation of the General- + h Δ+ h + 1 + h+1
c ) = ŶN (Û1 )
(ΔĴΔ +
− (ÛΔ
2 ) ,
ized Δ-circuit state are the subject of Section V.
  −1 
ŶN+
= Ẑ+T , (10)
V. CALCULATION OF THE GENERALIZED Δ-CIRCUIT
+ h+1 + h Δ+ h
STATE IN SEQUENCE DOMAIN (ĴΔ
c ) = (ĴΔ
c ) + (ΔĴc ) (11)
The calculation of the Generalized Δ-circuit state in sequence The injected fault currents are known from Table I:
domain is proposed for two different cases, in accordance with
Section II B, as follows. 0, l = k
JˆlΔ + = (12)
Control Strategy I: All Type III-IV DGs supply fault currents JˆkΔ + = 0, l=k
which are the same as their pre-fault currents.
In this case the Generalized Δ-circuit reduces to the tradi- The Type III-IV DGs’ excess currents are known from (3):
⎧
tional Δ-circuit. Using (4) and equations from Table I, its three ⎨0, l ∈
/ αDG3 − 4
sequence domain states are calculated in the following way: ˆ
JDG3 − 4 l =
Δ+ 0, l ∈ αDG3 − 4 , Control Strategy I (13)
 + + T ⎩ ˆΔ +
+ −IDG3−4 l , l ∈ αDG3 − 4 , Control Strategy II
Û2 Û3 . . . Ûk+ . . . Ûn+ = Ẑk Jˆk+ , (6a)
 − − T − The iterative procedure is stopped when the convergence cri-
Û2 Û3 . . . Ûk− . . . Ûn− = Ẑ k Jˆk− , (6b) terion is achieved:
 
 0 0 T 0  Δ + h + 1  Δ + h 
Û2 Û3 . . . Ûk0 . . . Ûn0 = Ẑ k Jˆk0 . (6c)  Ûl − Ûl  ≤ εU , l = 2, 3, . . . , n + p (14)
Û + − Û + Û − − Û − All parameters and state variables which are defined in the
Iˆl+ = L + l ; Iˆl− = L − l ;
Ẑl Ẑl sequel refer to positive sequence (+in the superscript). h is
the iteration number; n is the number of three-phase buses in
Û 0 − Û 0 the system; p is the number of loops. ẑl+ and ŷlo
+
are the se-
Iˆl0 = L 0 l (7)
Ẑl ries and shunt parameters of the l-th Γ segment – Fig. 2 (the

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3242 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 4, JULY 2017

Type I and II DG parameters are included in the shunt param-

eters of Γ segments); αl is the set of Γ segments which are
successors of segment l; ÛL+ , Ûl+ and Iˆl+ are the voltages and
currents of l-th Γ segment; Jˆcl+ are the breakpoint currents if
node l is one of the breakpoint nodes; these currents are ag-
gregated in the vectors of breakpoint currents Ĵ+ c ; Ĵc refers to
+
+ h+1 + h+1
corrections of these currents; (Û1 ) and (Û2 ) refer to
the (h + 1)-th approximations of vectors of the first and sec-
h+1 h+1
ond breakpoint nodes; [(Û+ 1 ) − (Û+2 ) ] are the vectors
of breakpoints voltage mismatches; their dimensions are p ×
1. ŶN+
and Ẑ+T are Norton and Thévenin matrices seen from
the breakpoints; their dimensions are equal to the number of
h
loops (p × p). (Ĵ+ c ) is the vector of current approximations of
h+1
breakpoint currents, (Ĵ+ c ) is the vector of corrections of the
h+1
h-th approximations of breakpoint currents, while (Ĵ+ c ) is
the vector of corrected (h + 1)-th approximations of breakpoint
currents; their dimensions are p×1. Voltage of the supply point
in the Generalized Δ -circuit is zero, initial approximations of
voltages of all nodes and initial approximations of breakpoint
currents are zero. αDG3 − 4 is the set of Type III-IV DGs, and
JˆDG3−4
+
are their excess currents.
For negative and zero sequences of the Generalized Δ-circuit
there is no need for the additional iterative procedure, because
Type III-IV DGs are set to inject only positive sequence currents.
Thus, (6b), (6c), and (7) are used for the calculation of the
negative and zero sequence circuits of the Generalized Δ-circuit.
The block-diagram of the proposed SCC procedure is pre-
sented in Fig. 3. Part I is general. Part II deals with systems
where Control Strategy I is used in all Type III-IV DGs. The
negative and zero sequence circuits of the Generalized and tra-
ditional three-phase Δ-circuits are mutually equal. In addition,
if Control Strategy I is used for protection of all Type III-IV
DGs, positive sequence circuits of both three-phase Δ-circuits
are mutually equal as well. In this case the Generalized Δ-circuit
reduces to the traditional Δ-circuit. Part III deals with systems
where Control Strategy II is used in some or all Type III-IV DGs.
In this case, positive sequences of traditional and Generalized
Δ-circuits are different. Fig. 3. The block-diagram of the proposed SCC procedure.
At the beginning of the SCC procedure all DFIGs are included
in the set of Type III-IV DGs. The magnitudes of their terminal
voltages UDFIG are compared with the predefined thresholds
(TH) in each iteration. In the case of the crowbar protection, if
the terminal voltage at any of the DFIGs falls below the threshold
value, its model is changed to the Type II DG model. In the next
iterations, their terminal voltages are checked for the possibility
of the voltage returning to above TH. When this happens with a
DFIG, its model is changed back to the Type III-IV DG model
and it is not changed again. This voltage checking and returning
back of the model is not presented in the block-diagram to Fig. 4. Modified IEEE 13 test feeder.
prevent excess complexity.

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The proposed SCC method was first tested on a modified
version of the IEEE 13 test feeder – Fig. 4. The feeder was
modified to be balanced in the symmetrical pre-fault state by
using the line section parameters of the IEEE 4 test feeder.
Additionally the transformer between buses 633 and 634 was
substituted with the line section. Types I, II, III and IV DGs
were added in buses 646, 611, 634 and 675, respectively.
There was a load in every bus, except in DG buses. All loads
were mutually equal, with values: Ŝ = (1 + j0.5) [MVA]. All
line sections were mutually equal. Parameters of all four DG
types were taken from [2]. They supplied the same power in

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 STREZOSKI et al.: GENERALIZED Δ -CIRCUIT CONCEPT FOR INTEGRATION OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATORS IN ONLINE SHORT-CIRCUIT 3243

TABLE II TABLE III

COMPARISON OF RESULTS PROVIDED BY IBFS AND HCM COMPARISON OF RESULTS PROVIDED BY SIMPLIFIED IBFS AND EXTENDED
FOR SHORT-CIRCUIT AT BUS 680 EVS FOR A SHORT-CIRCUIT AT BUS 671

IBFS [kA] HCM [kA] Difference in magnitude[%] IBFS [kA] EVS [kA] Difference in magnitude[%]

3LG IˆSB 5.634 − j10.793 5.689 − j11.656 6.5

Iˆfault 5.997 − j11.394 6.442 − 12.452 8.9
IˆSB 4.007 − j7.748 3.928 − j7.692 0.62
IˆDG1 0.133 − j0.424 0.102 − j0.458 5.6
IˆDG1 0.056 + j0.105 0.042 + j0.117 3.49
IˆDG3 0.232 − j0.386 0.305 − j0.405 14.8
Iˆfault 3.631 − j7.854 3.741 − j7.956 1.62
IˆDG2 0.383 − j0.447 0.311 − j0.422 9.9
IˆDG2 0.102 − j0.225 0.119 − j0.233 5.73
IˆDG4 0.081 − j0.108 0.135 + j0 0
2LG (phases b, c)
IˆSB −7.285 − j2.049 −7.239 − j2.020 0.51
IˆDG1 −0.048 + j0.034 −0.054 + j0.024 3.46
Iˆfault −7.087 − j1.859 −7.225 − j1.956 2.16
IˆDG2 −0.178 − j0.116 −0.190 − j0.122 5.82 TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF RESULTS PROVIDED BY SIMPLIFIED IBFS AND EXTENDED
2L (phases b, c) EVS FOR A SHORT-CIRCUIT AT BUS 680
IˆSB −7.048 − j3.290 −6.999 − j3.221 0.93
IˆDG1 −0.054 + j0.022 −0.060 + j0.016 5.81
IBFS [kA] EVS [kA] Difference in magnitude[%]
Iˆfault −6.844 − j3.122 −6.933 − j3.303 2.09
IˆDG2 −0.152 − j0.131 −0.166 − j0.133 5.93 IˆSB 3.615 − j7.568 3.754 − j7.819 3.40
SLG (phase a) Iˆfault 4.366 − 8.559 4.590 − j9.089 5.93
IˆDG1 0.119 − j0.397 0.102 − j0.449 10.15
IˆSB 1.594 − j4.080 1.700 − j4.011 0.55
IˆDG3 0.081 − j0.038 0.296 − j0.207 303.74
IˆDG1 −0.083 − j0.029 −0.079 − j0.028 5.80
IˆDG2 −0.293 + j0.353 0.303 − j0.414 11.82
Iˆfault 1.086 − j3.905 1.252 − j3.911 1.58
IˆDG4 0.081 − j0.108 0.135 + j0 0
IˆDG2 −0.043 − j0.056 −0.026 − j0.076 4.90

normal operating conditions, each one providing 12% of the
system’s total load. This means that the power supplied by DGs
was almost 50% of the total load. This made the test system an
adequate testbed of future active distribution systems.
In order to validate the proposed method, IBFS was first
compared with the HCM in [3]. As the HCM is not designed for
IBDGs and DFIGs, these DGs were disconnected from the test
feeder for this comparison. Therefore, only Type I and Type II
DGs were connected. Results are shown in the Table II for all
four solid short-circuits (3LG, 2LG, 2L and SLG) at bus 680.
The current of the substation branch (IˆSB ), the current at the
fault location (Iˆfault ) and currents injected by Types I and II
DGs (IˆDG1 and IˆDG2 , respectively) are shown in the table. Due
to the space constraints in this paper, in case of unbalanced
faults only the maximal current of all three phases is presented
in all tables that follow. For example, if an SLG fault occurs in
phase a, then only the phase a current is presented in tables that
follow.
Slight differences in results from Table II (less than 6%)
appear since loads were modeled as constant currents in the
IBFS and as constant impedances in the HCM. These differences
are same in absolute values (kA) for all currents from Table II,
but as currents IˆSB and Iˆfault have significantly higher values
than currents IˆDG1 and IˆDG2 , the percentage differences appear
much higher for currents IˆDG1 and IˆDG2 .
The IBFS was further compared with the extended EVS
method [2]. For this comparison, all four DGs were connected
to the feeder. The control strategies implemented in IBDG and
DFIG were assumed as explained in Section II. For DFIG it was
assumed that the crowbar is installed, as [2] cannot implement
the chopper protection. The threshold value for the crowbar to
react was assumed to be 70% of the rated voltage at the DFIG’s
terminals. The threshold refers to the phase with the minimal
voltage. The Control Strategy I was assumed – if the crowbar
does not react, DFIG would continue to supply the pre-fault
current throughout the duration of the fault. For the IBDG, the
Control Strategy II was assumed (Eq. 2). It was assumed that the
current limit is 1.5 of the rated current. Additionally, since [2]
neglects the influence of loads, they were neglected in the IBFS
for this comparison. Thus, the IBFS was simplified to match [2]
as much as possible. Short-circuits were simulated at buses 671
and 680. Results are presented for 3LG, as [2] is not designed
for unbalanced faults. Tables III and IV show the results of this
comparison. The current of the substation branch, the current
at the fault location and currents injected by DGs are shown
in tables. Currents injected by Type III and Type IV DGs are
marked by IˆDG3 and IˆDG4 , respectively.
For the short-circuit at bus 671 (Table III) the voltage at the
DFIG’s terminals dropped below the threshold value. Thus the
crowbar should react. However, for the short-circuit at bus 680
(Table IV) the voltage at the DFIG’s terminals remained above
the threshold value. Thus, in this case crowbar should not react.
The IBFS was further tested on the same feeder from Fig. 4
for three unbalanced short-circuits (2LG, 2L, and SLG), but
with all four DGs connected to the feeder. Short-circuits were
simulated at bus 671, one at a time. Loads were taken into
account for this example. The threshold for crowbar’s reac-
tion and control strategies for DFIG and IBDG were assumed
same as for the previous example. Test results are shown in
Table V.
In this example (short-circuits at bus 671), voltages at DFIG’s
terminals dropped below the crowbar’s threshold value for all
three short-circuits. Therefore, DFIG model is switched from
Type III-IV DG model to Type II DG model after the second

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3244 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 32, NO. 4, JULY 2017

TABLE V between results obtained by the IBFS and by the extended

RESULTS PROVIDED BY IBFS FOR UNBALANCED SHORT-CIRCUITS AT BUS 671
EVS regarding the current of the substation branch and
the short-circuit current at the fault location are less than
2LG (phases b, c) [kA] 2L (phases b, c) [kA] SLG (phase a) [kA] 9%. The highest difference in results (almost 15%) is no-
IˆSB 10.343 − j2.768 9.740 − j4.642 2.331 − j5.640 ticed for the DFIG’s injected fault current (IˆDG 3 ). This is
Iˆfault 10.535 − j5.792 9.932 − j4.678 2.337 − j5.640 because the extended EVS neglects the influence of the
IˆDG1 0.257 + j0.131 0.256 + j0.142 −0.131 + j0.072 crowbar’s resistance, while the IBFS takes it into account.
IˆDG3 0.239 + j0.213 0.233 + j0.224 0.161 + j0.067
Moreover, the extended EVS neglects the pre-fault state,
IˆDG2 0.428 + j0.326 0.416 + j0.349 −0.202 + j0.139
IˆDG4 0.081 − j0.108 0.081 − j0.108 0.081 − j0.108 which is partially compensated for by multiplying results
with corresponding coefficients. Instead, the IBFS takes
the actual pre-fault state into account. This additionally
TABLE VI influences results for currents supplied by Type I, II, and
EXECUTION TIMES FOR SCC FOR FOUR LARGE-SCALE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS III DGs (from 10% to 15%). Also, the extended EVS ne-
glects the influence of loads, which would further under-
System Number of Busses Number of Loops Number of DGs Execution Time [ms] mine accuracy, as shown in [19]. Additionally, the results
A 500 0 4 3.26
for the current supplied by the IBDG (IˆDG4 ) completely
B 1250 4 10 10.66 differ for the two methods. While their magnitudes are the
C 5000 8 20 42.67 same, the ratio of their real and imaginary components is
D 10000 10 50 61.18
completely different. This is because the extended EVS
cannot implement any control strategy. It simply adds 1.5
of the IBDG’s rated current to the total fault current. In
iteration of the IBFS. Note that if chopper protection was used contrast, the IBFS can implement an arbitrary selected
for the converter’s protection, Type III-IV DG model would still control strategy. Therefore, regarding DFIGs and IBDGs,
be used regardless of the terminal voltage, as in that case DFIG the IBFS provides more accurate results as it takes into
would have managed to maintain its fault current control. As for account more accurate models and control strategies im-
IBDG, in accordance with the control strategy assumed in this plemented in modern DGs.
paper, it supplied the same symmetrical current even in case of 3) Results from Table IV show a huge difference in the
unbalanced faults. The magnitude of this current is limited to current supplied by the DFIG (IˆDG3 ) obtained by two
1.5 of its rated current, while its real and imaginary parts were methods. As the short-circuit occurred far from the DFIG,
calculated as in (2). the voltage at the DFIG’s terminals remained above the
Finally, IBFS was tested on four large-scale distribution sys- threshold value. Thus in this case the crowbar should not
tems (A, B, C and D), in which the number of buses varies from react. Therefore, the DFIG will maintain its control of the
500 to 10000, while the number of loops varies from 0 to 10. injected fault current. This is recognized by the IBFS, and
The number of DGs varies from 4 to 50. The characteristics of the DFIG’s fault current remained at its pre-fault value.
these systems along with the computation times (in milliseconds However, the extended EVS assumes that the crowbar will
(ms)) are presented in Table VI. The results include the time re- always react. This leads to extremely high error in the case
quired for calculation of all four solid short-circuits (at the same of the short-circuit at bus 680. The error is more than 300%
location), along with the calculation of the entire faulted system for the DFIG’s injected fault current. Thus, the traditional
state. Tests were carried out on a PC, Intel i3 – 2330 M, 4 GB assumption that the crowbar will always react, suggested
RAM. All calculation procedures were in-house developed and in previous works [2], [18], can introduce a high error in
programmed in FORTRAN 2008. the case of faults located far from the DFIG. This could
Note that the computation times from Table VI are for distri- seriously affect the protection equipment installed at the
bution systems which contain Type III-IV DGs with the Control DFIG itself as well as on the laterals close to the DFIG.
Strategy II. In case of a distribution system without these DGs, For this purpose, the algorithm proposed in this paper is
the computation times would be even lower, as one entire IBFS particularly useful.
procedure would be avoided (Section V). 4) Table V shows that the IBFS procedure based on the
Based on the results, the following can be summarized: Generalized Δ-circuit successfully solves all solid short-
1) Table II shows a good agreement between the results ob- circuits (unbalanced short-circuits included) in distribu-
tained by the IBFS and by the HCM for the distribution tion systems with all types of DGs, whereas extended
system without DFIGs and IBDGs. This proves that the EVS is limited to balanced short-circuits (3LGs) only.
IBFS provides correct results as the HCM is a classi- 5) Finally, Table VI shows that despite being extremely ro-
cal method which has been used for years for the SCC bust, the IBFS procedure has a low execution time even
purposes. in the case of large-scale weakly-meshed distribution sys-
2) Results from Table III imply that the upstream grid is the tems with a high penetration of modern DGs. The IBFS
most dominant fault current source. Regarding DGs, the calculates all four solid short-circuits, along with the en-
highest contributions were from Types I and II DGs and tire faulted system state of the 10000 bus system with
Type III DG when the crowbar reacted. The least contri- 10 loops and 50 DGs in less than 62 milliseconds. This
bution was from the Type IV DG. These results match makes the IBFS particularly useful for online applications
well with the literature [2], [15]–[17]. The differences in future active distribution systems.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 STREZOSKI et al.: GENERALIZED Δ -CIRCUIT CONCEPT FOR INTEGRATION OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATORS IN ONLINE SHORT-CIRCUIT
VII. CONCLUSION
Modern DG models, such as DFIGs and IBDGs, cannot be
integrated in traditional SCC procedures due to the wide range
of their fault current control strategies. Thus, a novel online SCC
procedure (IBFS), based on the proposed Generalized Δ-circuit
is presented in this paper. Besides for coping with traditional
DGs, the Generalized Δ-circuit concept allows integration of
any control strategy implemented in modern DGs into the pro-
posed SCC procedure. Additionally, the algorithm for deciding
which DFIG model should be used, based on the severity of
the fault and DFIG’s protection scheme, was developed in this
paper and integrated into the proposed procedure.
The robustness of the IBFS is established by the simplicity
of how a large range of distribution system models – from over-
simplified to rigidly modeled distribution systems, including
modern DGs with an arbitrary selected control strategies, are
handed in the method. Also, using Thévenin vectors for calcu-
lating the negative and zero sequence circuits of the Generalized
Δ-circuit, makes this procedure extremely fast. The accuracy,
robustness and extremely low computation time of the IBFS
makes procedure developed in this paper particularly suitable
and efficient for a large number of DMS power applications in
future distribution systems.
In addition, the fact that the SCC solvers in current Interna-
tional Standards are limited to traditional systems without mod-
ern DGs, while the IBFS has great performances when modern
large-scale distribution systems are considered, the proposed
procedure could be implemented in solvers for some future and
updated International Standards for SCCs of active distribution
systems.
REFERENCES
[1] Short-Circuit Currents in Three-Phase A.C. Systems—Part 0: Calculation
of Short-Circuit Currents, IEC 60909-0, 2001.
[2] T. N. Boutsika and S. A. Papathanassiou, “Short circuit calculations in
network with distributed generation,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 78,
pp. 1181–1191, 2008.
[3] Z. Xiaofeng, F. Soudi, D. Shirmohammadi, and C. S. Cheng, “A distribu-
tion short circuit analysis approach using hybrid compensation method,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 2053–2059, Nov. 1995.
[4] W. M. Lin and T. C. Ou, “Unbalanced distribution network fault analysis
with hybrid compensation,” IET Gener., Transm., Distrib., vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 92–100, 2011.
[5] D. Van Tu, S. Chaitusaney, and A. Yokoyama, “Maximum-allowable
distributed generation considering fault ride-through requirement and
reach reduction of utility relay,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 2,
pp. 534–541, Apr. 2014.
[6] M. E. Baran and I. M. El-Markaby, “Fault analysis on distribution feeders
with distributed generators,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 4,
pp. 1757–1764, Nov. 2005.
[7] V. Strezoski and P. Vidović, “Power flow for general mixed distribution
networks,” Int. Trans. Elect. Energy Syst., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 2455–2471,
2015.
[8] R. A. Jabr and I. Dzafic, “A fortescue approach for real-time short circuit
computation in multiphase distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 3276–3285, Nov. 2015.
[9] M. Abdel-Akher and K. M. Nor, “Fault analysis of multiphase distribution
systems using symmetrical components,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25,
no. 4, pp. 2931–2939, Oct. 2010.
[10] L. Strezoski and M. Prica, “Real-time short-circuit analysis of active distri-
bution systems,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Conf. Illinois, Champaign,
IL, USA, 2016, pp. 1–8.
Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DURGAPUR. Downloaded on June 18,2024 at 13:57:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3245
[11] F. Gao and M. Iravani, “A control strategy for a distributed generation
unit in grid-connected and autonomous modes of operation,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 850–859, Apr. 2008.
[12] R. Bergen and V. Vittal, Power System Analysis, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
[13] E. Muljadi and V. Gevorgian, “Short-circuit modeling of a wind power
plant,” in Proc. 2011 IEEE Power Energy Soc. General Meeting, Detroit,
MI, USA, 2011, pp. 1–9.
[14] R. A. Walling and M. L. Reichard, “Short circuit behavior of wind tur-
bine generators,” in Proc. 2009 IEEE Annu. Conf. Protective Relay Eng.,
College Station, TX, USA, 2009, pp. 492–502.
[15] D. F. Howard, “Short-Circuit currents in wind-turbine generator net-
works,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., Georgia Inst. of Technol.,
Atlanta, GA, USA, 2013.
[16] J. R. Williams and B. Karlson, “Wind power plant Short-Circuit modeling
guide,” Sandia Nat. Lab., Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2012.
[17] Joint Working Group, “Fault current contribution from wind plants,” report
to the T&D Committee of the IEEE Power and Energy Society, Pro Relay,
2015.
[18] F. Sulla, J. Svensson, and O. Samuelsson, “Symmetrical and unsymmet-
rical short-circuit current of squirrel-cage and doubly-fed induction gen-
erators,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 1610–1618, 2011.
[19] L. Strezoski and M. Prica, “Calculation of relay currents in active weakly-
meshed distribution systems,” in Proc. IEEE Clemson Univ. Power Syst.
Conf., Clemson, SC, USA, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[20] A. Rankovic, B. Maksimovic, and A. Saric, “A three-phase state estima-
tion in active distribution networks,” Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 54,
pp. 154–162, 2014.
[21] L. Strezoski, V. A. Katic, B. Dumnic, and M. Prica, “Short-Circuit model-
ing of inverter based distributed generators considering the FRT require-
ments,” in Proc. IEEE North Amer. Power Symp., Denver, CO, USA, 2016,
pp. 1–6.
[22] D. Shirmohammadi, H. W. Hong, A. Semlyen, and G. X. Luo,
“A compensation-based power flow method for weakly meshed distri-
bution and transmission networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 2,
pp. 753–762, May 1988.
Luka Strezoski (S’13) received the B.S. and M.Sc. degrees in power en-
gineering from the University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia, in 2013 and
2014, respectively. He is working toward the Ph.D. degree. He is currently
with the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, Case West-
ern Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA, as a Research Scholar. His re-
search interests include distribution system modeling; power flow and short-
circuit calculations; and integration of distributed generators to the DMS power
applications.
Marija Prica (M’10) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in power engineering
from the University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia, in 2000 and 2006, respec-
tively, and the Ph.D. degree from Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA, in 2010. She is an Assistant Professor at Case Western Reserve Univer-
sity, Cleveland, OH, USA. Her interest include distribution system planning and
protection; integration of advanced technologies and control; decision-making
for future electricity systems; and optimization of energy storage operation.
Kenneth A. Loparo (F’99–LF’16) is the Nord Professor of Engineering and
Chair of the EECS Department, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland,
OH, USA. His research interests include stability and control of nonlinear sys-
tems with applications to large-scale electric power systems, nonlinear filtering
with applications to monitoring, fault detection, diagnosis, and reconfigurable
control, etc.
Dr. Loparo is an Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTION ON POWER SYSTEMS and
has held numerous positions in the IEEE Control Systems Society.