REPORT ON

MICROGRID PROTECTION

Grenoble July 2017

 Table of Contents
I. GRID-CONNECTED MODE OF OPERATION..........................................3
1. One-line diagram of the studied microgrid.................................................3
2. Fault current calculations............................................................................3
3. Conventional Protection system..................................................................4
3.1. Case study 1: without the implementation of FRT-based protection
for PV units.............................................................................................................5
3.2. Case study 2: with the usage of FRT-based protection........................7
3.3. Conclusion............................................................................................9
4. Proposed protection scheme......................................................................10
5. Evaluation of the performance of the proposed microgrid protection
scheme 11
5.1. Case study 1: without application of FRT element............................11
5.2. Case study 2: with application of FRT element.................................13
II. ISLANDED MODE OF OPERATION.......................................................14
1. One-line diagram of the studied isolated microgrid..................................14
2. Isolated Microgrid protection system using FCO.....................................14
3. Microgrid protection system based on relays and circuit breakers...........17
3.1. Case study 1: without the integration of FRT function......................17
3.2. Case study 2: with the integration of FRT function...........................18
III. Conclusion................................................................................................19
 I. GRID-CONNECTED MODE OF OPERATION
1. One-line diagram of the studied microgrid

Figure 1 – One-line principal diagram of the studied microgrid

2. Fault current calculations

In order to evaluate the performance of any protection system, the important
stage is to simulate faults at various locations to determine the fault current values of
the studied grid.

After fault simulations, the time-current characteristics of the various relays in

case of faults on different feeders are illustrated in Fig. 2.

140 450

400
120
IA
350
100 IB
IA IC
300
IB
80 Fault current seen by Relay R2
IC 250
in case of fault F2
If, A

If, A

60 200

150
40 Fault currents seen by R1
in case of fault af F1
100

20
50

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
a)
Time, s
0 0.2 0.4
Time, s b)
0.6 0.8 1
 500 900

450 800
IA IA
400 IB 700 IB
IC IC
350
600

300
500

If, A
If, A
250 Fault current seen by Relay R3
in case of phase-to-phase fault F3 Fault currents seen by Relay R4
400 in case of fault at F4
200
300
150
200
100

100
50

0
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time, s
Time, s

c) d)
Figure 2 – Time-fault current curves seen by various relays
in case of phase-to-phase faults at the end of their corresponding feeders

The values of these fault currents registered by various relays when faults occur
at the end of their corresponding feeders are summarized in the Table 1.
Table 1 – Fault current values and overcurrent relay setting parameters

Fault location Fault type Fault current values, A

F1 Phase-to-phase 110
F2 Phase-to-phase 400
F3 Phase-to-phase 470
F4 Phase-to-phase 800

3. Conventional Protection system

The conventional coordination of
upstream overcurrent relay with the Fuse- 180

160
Cut-Out (FCOs) installed at the beginning of 140

each low voltage feeder is being widely 120

Time, s

applied for protecting the low-voltage 100

80

60

40

20

0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
I, A
distribution network. The melting time-current curve of a commonly used FCO is
presented in Fig.3.

Concerning protection issues of PV

Figure 3 - The melting curve of a typical FCO
units, in general, a simple voltage-based
protection unit is commonly utilized.

However, according to the new European Grid Codes [1], these PV elements that
are connected to un-faulted feeder should maintain their operation after an event of
fault either inside or outside the microgrid. This refers to the requirement entitled Fault
Ride Through (FRT) applicable for all electronically interfaced generation units,
especially for PV systems. Therefore, the author also proposes the application of FRT-
based protection units to prevent PV unit on un-faulted feeder from isolating from the
microgrid. In order to validate the effectiveness of the FRT integrated PV protection
system, faults at various locations on different feeders are also conducted and
discussed as follows.

The microgrid with the conventional protection scheme using FCO is illustrated
in Fig. 4.

Figure 4 – Grid-connected microgrid with the conventional protection plan

 1.1. Case study 1: without the implementation of FRT-based protection
for PV units

a) Fault on feeder 1

3000
600

2500
400

200

IfPV, A
2000
0
If, A

1500 -200

-400
1000
-600
500 -800

0
-1000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figu
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, s
Time, s

As can be seen from Fig. 5, the FCO-1 melts after 1708ms to

clear the fault at F6 while all the PV units are removed from the grid by their under-
voltage protection units (Fig. 6).

b) Fault on feeder 2

For fault at F7, due to the larger fault current value, the FCO-2 of the faulted
feeder melts more quickly after about 1600ms to isolate the fault. However, all the PV
units are also removed from the grid by their under-voltage protection units (Fig. 8).
3500 80

60
3000

40
2500
20
If PV, A

2000
If, A

1500
-20

1000 -40

-60
500

-80
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time, s
Time, s

Figure 7 – The curves of fault currents Fig

flowing through the feeder 2 eve
 c) Fault on feeder 3

For fault at F8, the FCO-3 of the faulted feeder melts after about 1850ms to clear
the fault. In addition, all the PV units are removed from the grid by their under-voltage
protection units (Fig. 10).

2500 100

80

2000 60

40

1500 20

If P V , A
If, A

1000 -20

-40

500 -60

-80

0 -100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time, s Time, s

Figu

1.2. Case study 2: with the usage of FRT-based protection

a) Fault on feeder 1

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of FRT-based protection units of the PV

systems, the author simulates faults at various locations on the feeder 1. The
simulation results reveal that the FRT function could support only a few PV units on
un-faulted branches remaining connected to the grid in the event of close faults inside
the microgrid. All the PV units on the faulted feeders are cut out.

200

150

100

50
If PV, A

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, s

Figure 11 – The curves of PV currents connected to faulted feeders

 25

20

15

10

If PV, A
0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, s

Figure 12 – The curves of PV currents connected to faulted feeders

This is an improvement in comparison with the previous cases (section 3.1) in

which all PV units in the microgrid are tripped due the propagation of voltage decrease
throughout the grid. The continuous operation of PV units after fault clearance ensures
the power supply to the local load and this, in turns, contributes to the increase of the
stability of the microgrid.

The two following figures illustrate the benefit of the application of FRT feature.
Fig. 11 and 12 show the time-current curves of a PV connected to feeder 1 and the
other to feeder 2, respectively. It is clear that only a few PV units on the un-affected
branches fail to maintain their operation after fault disappearance while those on
faulted feeders are all isolated from the network after 100ms;

b) Fault on feeder 2

The time-current characteristics of PV units operating on the faulted feeder and

un-faulted feeders are presented in Fig. 13 and 14 respectively.

80

60

40

20
If PV, A

-20

-40

-60

-80
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, s

Figure 13 – The curves of PV currents connected to faulted feeders

 30

20

10
If PV, A

-10

-20

-30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, s

Figure 14 – The curves of PV currents on un-faulted feeders

Similar to what discussed above, these illustrations indicate that the FRT function
could only preserve the continual operation of a number of PV units. A few PV units
are still interrupted due to the large melting time of FCO.

c) Fault on feeder 3

The time-current characteristics of PV units in this case are also included in Fig.
15 and 16 respectively to confirm again these statements mentioned in above
discussions.

60

40

20

0
If PV, A

-20

-40

-60

-80
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, s

Figure 15 – The curves of PV currents connected to faulted feeders

 25

20

15

10

If PV, A 0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, s

Figure 14 – The curves of PV currents on un-faulted feeders

1.3. Concl
usion

In this section, the author carries out the simulation of faults at various locations
inside the microgrid in both cases with and without the implementation of FRT-based
protection function for PV units.

The FCOs installed in the microgrid operate properly in both cases, isolating the
fault arising on its corresponding feeder. Moreover, the FRT units also help to
maintain the uninterrupted operation of some PV units on the sound branches in the
event of faults.

However, due to the quite long melting time of the used FCOs, faults inside the
microgrid last for a long period of time. As the results, there are several PV units
working on un-faulted feeders being isolated from the grid. In this case, the stable
operation of the microgrid is affected and some PV units cannot fulfill the FRT
requirements.

Therefore, this research adopts the protection scheme proposed in the following
section for microgrid protection and satisfaction of FRT requirement imposed by
ENTSO codes.

4. Proposed protection scheme

For the developed protection scheme, each feeder is protected by a relay which
includes an overcurrent element and an under-voltage one. The microgrid with the
proposed protection system is shown in Fig. 15.
 Figure 15 – Grid-connected microgrid with the proposed protection plan

The microgrid is connected with the utility through a circuit breaker with an
integrated relay consisting of an overcurrent and an under-voltage unit. The setting
parameters of each relay are presented in the table 2. The pickup current of the
overcurrent element of each relay is calculated by the formula 1.

(1)

where - phase-to-phase fault current derived from the table 1.

The voltage pickup parameters of the voltage element for each feeder relay have
the same values as for the PV protection.
Table 2 – The setting parameters for the proposed protection system

Function of
Relay Unit Pickup value Time delay, ms
protection
Overcurrent (A) 132 380 Primary
R1
Under-voltage (pu) 0.8 80 Backup
Overcurrent (A) 480 80 Primary
R2
Under-voltage (pu) 0.8 200 Backup
Overcurrent (A) 564 80 Primary
R3
Under-voltage (pu) 0.8 200 Backup
Overcurrent (A) 960 80 Primary
R4
Under-voltage (pu) 0.8 200 Backup

In the proposed protection strategy, the relay R1 will take responsibility of a

backup protection for other downstream relays. For example, in case of fault occurring
on the feeder 1, if the relay R2 fails to clear the fault, the relay R1 should detect and
isolate the fault after a grading time margin which usually takes up about 0.2 to 0.3s.
 5. Evaluation of the performance of the proposed microgrid
protection scheme
In order to examine the operability of the proposed microgrid protection system
as well as to test the accuracy of relay coordination, different kinds of fault at various
locations in the grid are simulated.

5.1. Case study 1: without application of FRT element

For fault at F6, feeder 1 (Fig. 15), the relay R2 reacts as primary protection
triggering a tripping signal to open the circuit breaker CB-2 in 80ms to isolate the fault
(Fig. 16).

1 1

Untrip
0.8 0.8
Tripping signal

Tripping signal
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Trip
0 0

-0.2 -0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Time, s Time, s

of R1, R3, and R4

Figure 16 – Tripping signals of four relays in case of fault on feeder 1

The fluctuation of the current flowing on the feeder 1 is presented in the Fig. 17.
 3000

2500

2000

If, A
1500

1000

500

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time, s

Figure 17 – Fault current curves flowing into the faulted feeder

An important issue that should be discussed herein is that if fault location is

located more closely to the point of common coupling, not only the PV units
connected to feeder 1 but also all the PV units on the other un-faulted feeders might be
disconnected from the microgrid due to the considerable decrease of voltage level at
their coupling points.

150 600

400
100
200
IfPV, A

50 0
IfPV, A

0
-200

-400
-50
-600

-100 -800

-1000
-150 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time, s
Time, s

a) PV fault currents in case of far fault b) PV fault currents in case of close fault

Figure 18 – PV fault currents in the event of faults at various locations on the feeder 1

As can be seen from the Fig. 18, in the event of fault occurring at F2, only those
PV units that are connected to feeder 2 are stopped feeding the currents to the grid
(Fig. 18a). On the contrary, when fault happens at those places near to the low voltage
bus, for example at F6, all the PV units are separated after a time delay of 100ms (Fig.
18b). This results in a significant power shortage that can lead to instability of the
microgrid and causing the wide-area load shedding. Therefore, this issue should be
taken into consideration to maintain the connection of the PV units on the sound
feeders in order to ensure the proper operation of the microgrid.
 5.2. Case study 2: with application of FRT element

In comparison to the case without utilization of FRT based protection, thanks to

the FRT function, the PV units on the sound feeder are remained operated with the
grid (Fig. 19a) even if solid three phase faults occur closely to the distribution bus.
Moreover, all the PV units on the faulted feeder are still tripped (Fig. 19b) which helps
to prevent these PV units from unintentional islanding operation.

30 80

20 60

10 40

IfPV
If PV, A

0 20

-10 0

-20 -20

-30 -40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time, s Time, s

a) Current variation of one PV b) Current variation of one PV

unit on the sound feeder Figure 19 – unit on the faulted feeder Fault
currents of various PV in the event of
closed-to- the bus faults on the feeder 1 in case usage of FRT element
 II. ISLANDED MODE OF OPERATION
1. One-line diagram of the studied isolated microgrid

Figure 20 – One-line principal diagram of the studied microgrid

2. Isolated Microgrid protection system using FCO

The protection scheme for the isolated microgrid using conventional FCO is
illustrated in Fig. 21.
 Figure 21 – Isolated microgrid with the conventional protection plan using FCO

A number of faults at various locations inside this microgrid is simulated to

examine the performance of the FCO-based protection scheme.

1400

1200

1000

800
If, A

600

400

200

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time, s

Figure 22 – Fault current curves flowing into the faulted feeder

 600

400

200

If PV, A
-200

-400

-600

-800
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time, s

Figure 23 – Fault currents of all PV units in an event of fault inside the microgrid

The fault current flowing through the FCO on the faulty feeder and the fault
currents of all PV units are demonstrated in the Fig. 22 and 23 correspondingly.

The simulation results indicate that due to the limited level of fault currents
generated by inverter-interfaced PV units, the FCO takes a very long time to operate.
Consequently, the faults practically turn permanent, causing the collapse of the
microgrid operation. Moreover, all the PV units are tripped in both cases, whether
using FRT function or not. Therefore, circuit breakers with integrated digital relays
should be used to protect this islanded microgrid.
 3. Microgrid protection system based on relays and circuit
breakers
In this section, the performance of a protection system based on the coordination
of digital relays and circuit breakers are carried out. Additionally, the benefit of FRT
element is also evaluated.

The one-line diagram of the microgrid with the proposed protection system is
presented in Fig. 24.

Figure 24 – One-line diagram of the isolated microgrid with the proposed protection system

3.1. Case study 1: without the integration of FRT function

The protection system evaluation has been performed. All the simulated faults
are cleared properly by the installed relays. For example, for the occurrence of fault at
F6, the overcurrent protection of relay R3 detects and clears the faults in about 150ms.
The fault current flowing into the fault point through relay R3 is depicted in Fig. 25.

Although the overcurrent function of the relay has suitable tripping time, all the
PV units are removed from service by the integrated under-voltage protection that is
demonstrated by Fig. 26. It is evident that all PV units on either faulted or un-faulted
feeders have been separated from the network.
 3000

2500

2000
If, A

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time, s

Figure 25 – Fault current curves flowing into the faulted feeder

600

400

200
If PV, A

-200

-400

-600
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time, s

Figure 26 – Fault current curves of all PV units

3.2. Case study 2: with the integration of FRT function

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the FRT feature integrated in the PV

protection, faults that are closed to common bus have been simulated. The simulation
current graphics show that all PV units, except for those related to the faulted feeder,
remain in service, supplying the power to the local loads. The simulation results are
illustrated in Fig. 27 and Fig.28.
 80

60

40

20

If PV, A
0

-20

-40

-60

-80
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time, s

Figure 27 – Current curves of PV units connected to faulty branch

600

400

200
If PV, A

-200

-400

-600
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time, s

Figure 28 –Current curves of PV units connected to sound feeders

III. Conclusion
In this research, various protection strategies for microgrid operated in grid-
connected mode and islanded mode of operation have been studied. The research has
also considered the effectiveness of using FRT for PV unit protection.

For the microgrid operated in parallel with the main grid or separately, the usage
of FCO has imposed several disadvantages on the operation of the microgrid. For the
grid-tied mode of operation, although all the FCOs have operated properly to isolate
the faults on the corresponding feeders, all PV units have been tripped due to the very
large melting time of these FCO. For the latter mode of operation, fault currents
generated by all the PV units are insufficient for the FCO to cut out. As a result, the
faults become permanent and the microgrid has collapsed.

Therefore, it is undeniable that the protection strategy for the studied microgrid
should be implemented through digital relays and fast tripping circuit breakers. The
effectiveness of the proposed protection plan has been demonstrated in the research.
For the grid-connected mode of operation, all the relays have triggered tripping signal
in a predefined time period to clear the faults on the corresponding feeders. All PV
units with the integrated FRT element remain supplying power to the network after
faults have been cleared. In case the relay responsible for primary protection fails to
clear the fault, the relay at the point of common coupling will take responsibility as a
backup protection to handle the fault.