energies

Article
New Infeed Correction Methods for Distance Protection in
Distribution Systems
Fahd Hariri and Mariesa Crow *

Electrical & Computer Engineering Department, Missouri University of Science & Technology,
Rolla, MO 65409, USA; fahrz9@[Link]
* Correspondence: crow@[Link]

Abstract: The reliability and security of power systems may be jeopardized by the increase in the
amounts of renewable generation and the uncertainties produced by these devices. In particular,
the protection schemes of traditional power systems have been challenged by the integration of
distributed generation (DG) resources. Distance relays (DRs), which have been mainly employed to
protect transmission systems, are increasingly proposed as one of the solutions to protect distribution
systems with a heavy penetration of DGs. However, conventional distance protection faces several
drawbacks that might lead to maloperation. One of those challenges is the “infeed effect”, which
causes the impedance seen by the distance relay to be larger than the actual positive-sequence
line impedance between the fault and relay location. This paper proposes three new methods
to estimate the distance to the fault in the presence of infeeds, whether in a radial distribution
feeder or the transmission line. Unlike other solution methodologies in the literature that require
communication links to estimate the distance to the fault, the proposed methods only need the local
measurement (i.e., the voltage and current measurements at the location of the distance relay) to do



the same. The performance of the method is demonstrated with a radial distribution system model


in PSCAD™/EMTDC™.
Citation: Hariri, F.; Crow, M. New
Infeed Correction Methods for
Keywords: infeed effect; distance relay; distributed generation; protection; PSCAD; faults
Distance Protection in Distribution
Systems. Energies 2021, 14, 4652.
[Link]

Academic Editors: Nicu Bizon and

1. Introduction
Mihai Oproescu As opposed to traditional distribution systems (DS) in which the substation is the pri-
mary source of generation, the integration of distributed generation (DG) brings generation
Received: 14 June 2021 closer to consumers by siting generation along the feeder. DG is typically considered to be
Accepted: 28 July 2021 one of the following energy sources: photovoltaics (PV), small wind turbines, diesel gen-
Published: 31 July 2021 erators, batteries, hydroelectric generators, or micro-turbines [1]. Siting small to medium
power generating stations closer to the customer reduces overall energy consumption by
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral decreasing active power losses incurred during the transmission of electricity, thereby
with regard to jurisdictional claims in reducing reliance on fossil fuels and improving environmental concerns. In addition, the
published maps and institutional affil- deployment of more efficient DG-based systems reduces economic costs and aids in the
iations. development of renewable energy. In addition, integration of DG-based sources improves
the operational reliability in the load centers that are remotely connected to the primary
power grid and overloaded urban zones. While there are many advantages to integrating
DG into the DS, the presence of DGs may complicate the existing protection of DSs, which
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. are usually protected with overcurrent protection equipment such as overcurrent relays
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. (OCRs) and/or fuses [2].
This article is an open access article With the predominant integration of DGs, the traditional radial and unidirectional
distributed under the terms and single-source-based distribution system configuration is changed into the bidirectional,
conditions of the Creative Commons multi-source-based distribution system [3]. Examples of the influences of DG on current
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
protection are shown in Figure 1. At the inception of the fault, as shown in Figure 1a, the
[Link]/licenses/by/
distribution substation and the DG jointly provide the fault current to the fault point. The
4.0/).

Energies 2021, 14, 4652. [Link] [Link]

Energies 2021, 14, 4652 2 of 22

DG fault current contribution increases the fault current. In Figure 1a, the CB1 should
isolate the fault and CB2 must not operate. However, the high fault current may cause
maloperation of both breakers (i.e., CB1 and CB2). The maloperation of CB2 will cause a
power outage to all customers connected to the healthy feeder (i.e., the feeder with no fault).
If a fault occurs downstream of the DG, as shown in Figure 1b, the fault current consists
of the fault current contribution from the DG and the fault current from the distribution
substation. Thus, the DG in Figure 1b decreases the fault current through CB2 compared
to the case with no DG. This situation could cause a “fail-to-trip” of CB2 because the
overcurrent protection sees a lower fault current than its trip settings.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 1. Fault current contributions for: (a) a fault on a neighboring feeder; (b) a downstream fault;
(c) a fault on a lateral feeder.

The integration of DG on a distribution feeder, as shown in Figure 1c, will affect the
coordination between the recloser and fuse. If a fault occurs, the fault current passing
through the recloser would be lower than the fault current if there were no DG in the
system. At the same time, the current through the fuse consists of the currents from the
distribution substation as well as the current from the DG, which means that the fuse
current is no longer the same as the current passing through the recloser. As a result,
recloser–fuse coordination may be lost. Therefore, the protection philosophy of distribution
systems must be reviewed and developed to overcome the new challenges posed by the
integration of DG. Protection challenges due to such situations and corresponding solutions
are discussed in [4–6]. One of the solutions that provides a reliable and secure protection
scheme for DG-integrated DS is using distance relays (DR) in place of overcurrent relays [7].
DRs, which were used mainly to protect transmission systems in the past, have been
proposed as one of the potential solutions to protect radial distribution systems [8,9]. The
significant advantages of DR include its innate ability to detect faults in both directions
(depending on the characteristics of the DR) and free from external system factors. These
features make DR a favorable choice for distribution system protection in comparison to
overcurrent protection [7]. However, integrating DGs in radial distribution systems may
create issues that affect the reliability and sensitivity of DRs. Some of these issues include
the proper setting of the zero-sequence compensation factor K0 , the fault resistance, and
the infeed effect [10,11].
The infeed effect due to the integration of DGs in radial distribution systems causes
the impedance seen by the relay to be larger than the actual positive-sequence impedance
between the relay location and the fault position, causing the relay to underreach [12].
Changing the DR setting to protect a line in a distribution system equipped with one or
more DGs often results in large settings. In other words, to address the infeed effect, the
DR impedance settings would be increased. However, these large settings may cause
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 3 of 22

maloperation of the DR during system disturbances, especially in heavy-load periods or

during stable swing oscillations [12].
Some of the solutions that have been used in transmission lines to solve this problem
are intertripping schemes, such as underreach with direct tripping, permissive under-
reach intertripping, and permissive overreach intertripping (pp. 210–213, [13]). These
communication-based schemes have been proved to be a very reliable solution. Another
communication-based solution, as proposed in [14], uses the real-time measurements of
the current at various locations to compensate for the impedance calculated by the DR.
Adjusting DR settings by using an adaptive protection scheme is proposed in [15]. The
scheme relies on using remote terminal units (RTUs) to exchange data via communica-
tion links (fiber optic) between the local and remote ends of the protected line. Similarly,
an adaptive distance relay setting is proposed in [16,17]. Mishra et al. [16] proposed an
adaptive distance protection that modifies DR trip boundary setting based on prefault
conditions of the solar photovoltaic (PV) plant (i.e., positive and negative impedances).
An adaptive approach is proposed in [17] to overcome the maloperation of the distance
relay in presence of infeed from static var compensator (SVC). Synchronized phasors
measurement (SPM) and communication links are required for the proposed approach in
[17]. In order to avoid the need for adaptive protection techniques, Tsimtsios et al. [18]
proposed a pilot-based distance protection scheme. The proposed scheme is applied to
meshed DS with high penetration of DGs. However, the aforementioned schemes have
the disadvantage that they explicitly rely on a communication network; therefore, if the
communication system fails (by either natural or cyber interference), the result will be
miscoordination of the protection system. Moreover, comparing currents at line ends is
expensive as it requires communication circuits to be at least as long as the lines themselves
to be protected. Furthermore, the maintenance cost of these communication systems can
be significant [19]. In the remainder of this paper, we propose several methods that avoid
the disadvantages posed by the communication requirement.
The objective of this paper is to introduce an accurate and inexpensive approach
to mitigate the infeed effect. The proposed approach is a cost-effective solution since it
only requires the measurements at the relay location to estimate the distance from the DR
location to the fault location in the presence of one or more distributed power sources.
Hence, there is no need to install any additional hardware beyond the existing conventional
protection, switching, and sensing devices.

2. Distance Protection
Distance protection is based on estimating the line impedance by comparing the fault
current passing through the relay against the voltage at the relay point. The feeder length
protected by the distance relay is usually divided into three zones or more. Each zone
covers a percentage of the line length. For example, Zone 1 usually covers about 85% of the
line length from Bus A to Bus B. Zone 2 covers the entire length of the line connecting Bus
A and Bus B plus a portion of the next line length (p. 184, [13]), and so on for the remaining
zones, as shown in Figure 2.

Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1

Bus A Bus B Bus C

CT 𝐼𝑓
Distribution
CB
Substation
F1 F2
VT 21
Distance
Relay

Figure 2. Distance relay protection zones for a radial system.

Energies 2021, 14, 4652 4 of 22

The distance relay located at Bus A measures the voltage (V) and current (I) at the
basic frequency, via voltage transformer (VT) and current transformer (CT), respectively.
The impedance seen by the relay is:

VR
ZR = (1)
IR

VR = IR · α · Zline (2)
where VR and IR are the voltage and current values measured by the relay, α represents
the distance between the relay point and the fault point, and Zline is the impedance of the
protected line. The value of the impedance, ZR , for a fault at F1 is

ZR = α · ZlineAB (3)

and for a fault at F2 is

ZR = ZlineAB + α · ZlineBC (4)
The distance relay operates when the impedance measured by the relay is less than the
relay setting value. In other words, the DR will operate if the measured impedance, also
known as the apparent impedance, is within its operating characteristic. This characteristic
is shown most conveniently in an impedance R–X diagram, where the x-axis represents
the resistance R and the y-axis represents the reactance X. There are many different DR
characteristics such as mho, impedance, and quadrilateral characteristic. Choosing from
these characteristics depends on many factors such as relay design, application, etc. [20].
Typical DR characteristics on a R–X diagram are shown in Figure 3.

X X X
𝑍𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑍𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒
𝑍𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

R R

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Distance relay characteristics on R–X diagram: (a) mho; (b) quadrilateral; (c) impedance.

3. Infeed Effect
The infeed effect causes the impedance seen by the relay to appear to be larger than
the actual positive-sequence impedance between the relay and the fault point, causing the
relay to underreach. The infeed effects during non-single-line-to-ground (SLG) faults in
different configurations are described in more detail in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Each system
configuration has a particular infeed effect on the distance relay. For each system, Z A ,
ZB , and ZC are the line positive-sequence impedances. IS , I1 , I2 , . . ., In are the currents
fed by the sources DG1 , DG2 , . . . , DG n . A DR is utilized to protect the feeder in each
configuration. The infeed effect on a ground distance relay is described in Section 3.3.

3.1. Configuration 1
A radial distribution feeder with a generation source at Bus B is shown in Figure 4a.
In the case of a three-phase fault at Bus C, the measured voltage by the DR at Bus A is [13]

VA = IS Z A + ( IS + I1 ) ZB (5)
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 5 of 22

The positive-sequence impedance up to the fault location measured by the DR is

I1
ZDR = Z A + (1 + ) ZB
IS
= Z A + ZB + K · ZB (6)

where K is defined as the infeed constant (K = II1 ). Based on Equation (6), the DR at
S
Bus A measures an impedance larger than the actual impedance between Bus A and the
fault point. The additional impedance, KZB , impacts the DR operation and the makes DR
underreach.

𝐷𝐺1 𝐼1 B
𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 + 𝐼2 … + 𝐼𝑛
𝑆𝑆 A 𝐼𝑆
DR 𝑍𝐴 𝑍𝐵 C
𝐷𝐺 𝐼1 B 𝐼2
𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 C 𝐷𝐺2 Fault
𝑆𝑆 A
DR 𝑍𝐴 𝑍𝐵
𝐼𝑛
𝐼𝑆 𝐷𝐺𝑛
Fault

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Infeed effect on distance protection: (a) radial distribution feeder with one DG; (b) radial
distribution feeder with n DGs connected to the same bus.

In Figure 4b, more than one DG are connected to the same bus. Their impact on DR
measurements is
VA = IS Z A + ( IS + I1 + I2 + . . . + In ) ZB (7)
The positive-sequence impedance of the line up to the fault point, measured by the
DR, is

I1 + I2 + . . . + In
ZDR = Z A + (1 + ) ZB
IS
= Z A + ZB + K n · ZB (8)

∑n I
where Kn is the infeed constant ( I1 + I2 +
IS
...+ In
= i=I11 i ) and n is the number of DGs connected
to Bus B.
The impedance–distance relation in the presence of infeeds is discussed in (pp. 186–
189, [13]). The line impedance for the system in Figure 5a is shown in Figure 5b as a
function of the distance. It is clear that the infeed effect changes the impedance measured
by the DR at Bus A. The impedance measured by the DR in Figure 5a for two different
configurations is visualized in Figure 5b. If there are no DGs in the system, the impedance
measured by the DR is equal to the actual impedance of the line, which is proportional to
the slope of line segment A0 B0 in Figure 5a. Integrating a DG into the system changes the
impedance measured by the DR, which is proportional to the slope of the line segment
B0 C 0 in Figure 5b. Equations (9) and (10) represent the impedance measured by the DR
based on the slope of the line segments in Figure 5b.

y2 − y1
ZDR,AB = m AB · d = ·d (9)
x2 − x1

where ZDR,AB is the measured impedance by the DR if a fault occurs in Line AB and m AB
is the slope of Line A0 B0 . d is the distance from the relay location up to the fault point. If a
fault occurs in Line BC, the impedance seen by the DR can be calculated as

y3 − y2
ZDR,BC = m BC · d = ·d (10)
x3 − x2
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 6 of 22

where ZDR,BC is the measured line impedance seen by the DR at Bus A due to a fault on
Line BC and m BC is the slope of the Line BC.

𝐷𝐺 𝐼1 B
𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1
C
𝑆𝑆 A
DR 𝑍𝐴 𝑍𝐵
𝐼𝑆 F
(a)
Impedance

𝑍𝐷𝑅
Apparent impedance
(due to infeed effect) as 𝐶 ′ = (𝑥3 , 𝑦3 )
𝑍𝐴𝐶 seen by DR at A
)
Line impedance
𝑍𝐴𝐵
as a function of
𝐵′ = (𝑥2 , 𝑦2 ) the distance d.
Distance, 𝑑
𝐴′ = (𝑥1 , 𝑦1 )
(b)

Figure 5. Infeed effect on distance protection: (a) radial distribution feeder with one DG;
(b) impedance seen by DR at A.

3.2. Configuration 2
A radial distribution feeder with two generation sources at Buses B and C is shown in
Figure 6a. In the case of a three line-ground (3LG) fault on Bus D, the positive-sequence
line impedance up to the fault point measured by the DR at Bus A would be

VA = IS Z A + ( IS + I2 ) ZB + ( IS + I2 + I3 ) ZC (11)
ZDR = Z A + (1 + K1 ) ZB + (1 + K2 ) ZC (12)

I1
where K1 is the infeed constant (K1 = IS ) of Line BC and K2 is the infeed constant
I1 + I2
(K2 = of Line CD. In general, if the feeder has n DGs, as shown in Figure 6b,
IS )
the positive-sequence line impedance up to fault position seen by the DR at Bus A is

VA = IS Z A + ( IS + I2 ) ZB + ( IS + I1 + I2 ) ZC + . . . + ( IS + I1 + I2 + . . . + In ) ZZ (13)
ZDR = Z A + (1 + K1 ) ZB + (1 + K2 ) ZC + . . . + (1 + Kn ) ZZ (14)

∑n I
where Kn is the infeed constant ( I1 + I2 +
IS
...+ In
= i=IS1 i ) for the remote line, n is the number
of all DGs on the feeder, and ZZ is the impedance of the remote line.

𝐷𝐺1 𝐼1 B
𝑆𝑆 A
𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 C 𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 + 𝐼2 D
𝐷𝑅 𝑍𝐴 𝑍𝐵 𝑍𝐶
𝐼𝑆 𝐷𝐺2 𝐼2
Fault

(a)

𝐷𝐺1 𝐼1 B 𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 + 𝐼2 … + 𝐼𝑛
𝑆𝑆 A 𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 C 𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 + 𝐼2 Y Z
DR 𝑍𝐴 𝑍𝐵 𝑍𝐶 𝑍𝑍
𝐼𝑆 𝐼2 𝐼𝑛
𝐷𝐺2 𝐷𝐺𝑛 Fault

(b)
Figure 6. Infeed effect on distance protection: (a) radial distribution feeder with three DGs; (b) radial
distribution feeder with n DGs.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 7 of 22

3.3. Infeed Effect on Ground Distance Relay

A distance relay is designed to measure the positive-sequence impedance of the
protected line. However, if a single line-ground (SLG) fault occurs, the measured impedance
does not reflect the actual impedance up to the fault location due to the existence of the zero-
sequence current. Therefore, the ground distance element (GDE) corrects the measured
impedance up to the fault location by applying a compensation factor K0 [21], which is
expressed for most distance relays as [22]

Z0 − Z1
K0 = (15)
Z1

Hence, the GDE measures the following impedance in case of SLG fault on phase A

VAg
ZGDEA = (16)
I A + K0 · I0

where ZGDEA is the measured impedance by the GDE on phase A in the case of a SLG fault
VA
on phase A. VAg is the phase-A-to-ground voltage (= √ ). I A is the phase A current and Z0
3
and Z1 are the zero and positive sequence impedances of the protected line, respectively.
It should be noted that additional GDEs are required for SLG faults on phases B and C
as well. If a SLG fault occurs at point C, as shown in Figure 5a, the positive-sequence
impedance up to the fault location appears to the GDE as

VAg I
ZGDEA = = Z A + (1 + 1 ) ZB
I A + K0 · I0 IS
= Z A + ZB + K · ZB (17)

Thus, the phase A current has been compensated by K0 and the GDE measures the positive-
sequence impedance to the fault in addition to the additional impedance caused by the
infeed effect.

4. Proposed Methodology
Due to the infeed effect caused by one or more distributed power sources between the
main source and the fault location, the measured positive-sequence impedance seen by the
DR does not indicate the true positive-sequence impedance. Many solutions have been
proposed to overcome this challenge. However, these solutions are either costly or have
other issues related to the reliability of the protection schemes, as described above. This
paper proposes a series of methods that are inexpensive, easy to implement, and do not
require communication links to estimate the actual positive-sequence line impedance in
the presence of one or more distributed power sources.

4.1. Method 1
This method requires the following data: (1) the measured impedance at the relay
location; (2) the locations of the DGs; (3) the impedance and the length of the protected
line; (4) fault current calculations (obtained previously from offline calculations). If the
distribution feeder/transmission line has only one power source, as shown in Figure 7a,
the line impedance equation as a function of distance can be written as

ZDR = m · d (18)

where ZDR is the positive-sequence impedance of the line/feeder corresponding to the

distance d. By rearranging (18), the distance d as a function of the impedance can be
represented as d = Zm
DR
.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 8 of 22

𝑆𝑆 A 𝐼1 B 𝐼1
F
DR 𝑍𝐴 𝑍𝐵

(a)
Impedance

𝑍𝐴𝐹
𝑍𝐴𝐵
(𝑥2 , 𝑦2 )

Distance, 𝑑
(𝑥1 , 𝑦1 )
(b)
Figure 7. Impedance of radial distribution feeder: (a) schematic of a radial distribution feeder; (b)
impedance seen by DR at A.

A distribution feeder with a single DG is shown in Figure 8. To develop the proposed

method, it is assumed that each line segment has a power source at each bus, except the
last bus, which has one DG at its sending end and terminates in a load. For example, Line
1–2 in Figure 8 has the substation and DG1 at its ends, but Line 2–3 terminates in a load.

𝐷𝐺1 𝐼1 2
𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 3
𝑆𝑆 1
DR 𝑍12 𝑍23
𝐼𝑆
Fault
Figure 8. Radial distribution feeder with one DG—Method 1.

The location/coordinate of the substation is assumed to be ( x1 , y1 ) = (0, 0) since the

DR is located at Bus 1. The location/coordinate of DG1 is ( x2 , y2 ), where x2 represents the
distance from the DR location to the DG1 location and y2 represents the actual positive-
sequence line impedance from the DR location to the DG1 location. The distance x3 from
the DR location to Bus 3 is known, but, due to the infeed effect, the impedance y2 does not
equal the total positive-sequence to Bus 3. Therefore, the impedance y3 must be calculated
using the following equation:

y3 = ZDR = Z12 + Z23 + K · Z23 (19)

where Z12 and Z23 are the actual positive-sequence line impedances, K is the infeed constant
(K = II1 ), and IS and I1 are the fault current contributions from the substation and DG1
S
(respectively) for the case of a fault at Bus 3. The fault currents IS and I1 for a 3LG fault can
be calculated using the following fault calculations:
Step 1 Calculation of the Thevenin impedance at the fault location. For the given system:

+
( ZS+ + Z12
+ +
) ZDG1 +
ZTH = + Z23 ·h (20)
ZS+ + Z12
+ +
+ ZDG 1

where h is the fractional distance along the length of Line 2–3. Note that h = 1 at
Bus 3 and h = 0 at Bus 2.
Step 2 Calculation of the fault current

Vf
I3LG = + (21)
ZTH
+
where Vf is the prefault voltage at the fault location and ZTH is the Thevenin
impedance of the positive-sequence network at the point of the fault from Step 1.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 9 of 22

Step 3 The fault current contributions from each source can be calculated using the
current divider formula:
+
ZDG
1
IS = I3LG · (22)
ZS+ + Z12
+ +
+ ZDG 1

ZS+ + Z12
+
I1 = I3LG · (23)
ZS+ +
+ Z12 +
+ ZDG1

The actual impedance of the line can be found through leveraging the line equation
that represents the impedance measured by the DR versus the distance from the fault
for different configurations, i.e., the system with and without DGs. In other words, the
impedance measured by DR with and without the infeed effect are compared to find the
actual impedance. The measured impedance of the line in the presence of the infeed effect
is formulated in (24).
ZDR − y2 = m2 · (d − x2 ) (24)
where ZDR is the impedance measured by the DR, x2 and y2 represent the coordination of
the first point of the faulted line segment, d is the unknown distance from the DR location
y −y
up to the fault point, m1 is the slope of the faulted line segment (m2 = x33 − x22 ), and x3 and
y3 are the coordinates of the remote end of the faulted line segment. Therefore, the distance
Z −y
to the fault can be calculated by rewriting (24) as d = DRm2 2 + x2 . Substituting d into (18),
the actual positive-sequence line impedance to the fault point can be obtained:
m
Zact = ( ZDR − y2 + m2 · x2 ) (25)
m2

Equation (26) is a generalization of (25) that calculates the actual impedance measured
by the DR for a system with more than one DG, such as the one shown in Figure 9.

𝐷𝐺1 𝐼1 2
𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1 + 𝐼2 𝐼𝑆 + 𝐼1 +𝐼2 + ⋯ + 𝐼𝑛
𝑆𝑆 1 3 n n+1
𝐷𝑅 𝑍12 𝑍23 𝑍3𝑛 𝑍𝑍
𝐼𝑆 𝐷𝐺2 𝐼2 𝐷𝐺𝑛 𝐼𝑛
Fault

Figure 9. Radial distribution feeder with n DGs (proposed Method 1).

The actual impedance is given by

m
Zact = ( ZDR − yi + mi · xi ) (26)
mi

where mi is the slope of the faulted line, xi and yi are the coordinates of the near end
of the faulted line, and i is the Bus number of the faulted segment (i.e., the near end of
the faulted segment). The line segmentation data including the location of buses (i.e.,
x-axis in Figure 5b), impedance of the lines (i.e., y-axis in Figure 5b), and fault currents
should be calculated offline and stored in the DR. To calculate the actual impedance of
the line, the fault location in the system must be known. To this end, we propose an
approach that iteratively compares the impedance of the line segments stored in DR with
the impedance measured by the DR. The different steps of this approach are illustrated in
Figure 10a. Finding the faulty section provides the impedance and distance from the DR of
the underlying line, which helps to calculate the actual impedance measured by the DR
according to (26). A simplified schematic diagram of Method 1 is shown in Figure 10b. The
control logic in Figure 10b contains the required equations to calculate the infeed constant,
K, the line slope for each line segment, and the proposed logic steps to determine the
faulted segment of the line, as explained in Figure 10a.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 10 of 22

Start

Save location of buses

and calculate line slopes

No Yes
𝑖 > Number of buses Measure V&I and
𝑫𝑮
calculate 𝑍𝐷𝑅 𝐼1 2

𝑺𝑺 1
𝑖 =𝑖+1 𝐼𝑆 3
𝑆𝑒𝑡 𝑖 = 1, 𝑗 = 2 CT
CB
𝑗=𝑗+1
No F
VT
𝑍𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑍𝐷𝑅 No Distance Relay (21)
𝑍𝐷𝑅 ≤ 𝑍𝑖𝑗 Yes
≤ 𝑍𝑖+1 𝑗+1 𝑴𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒁𝑫𝑹
Location of buses/nodes:
𝑍𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 𝑍𝐷𝑅 (𝑥1 , 𝑦1 ), (𝑥2 , 𝑦2 ), … , (𝑥𝑛 , 𝑦𝑛 ) Control
Yes Feeder/Line: Length, impedance.
Logic
𝒎 𝒙𝒊
Calculated fault currents:
𝒎𝒊 𝒚𝒊
𝐼𝑠 , 𝐼1 , … , 𝐼𝑛 .
No 𝐼
𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑞𝑛. (26) 𝑍𝑎𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝑍𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝒁𝑫𝑹
𝑉 𝑉/𝐼 𝑚
𝒁𝒂𝒄𝒕 = (𝑍 − 𝑦𝑖 + 𝑚𝑖 ∙ 𝑥𝑖 )
𝑚𝑖 𝐷𝑅

Yes 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝒁𝒂𝒄𝒕
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐶𝐵
𝒁𝒔𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 ≤ CB

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Method 1 for calculating the feeder impedance in presence of infeed effect: (a) flowchart
of Method 1; (b) simplified schematic diagram of Method 1.

As an example, consider the simple distribution feeder shown in Figure 11. Assume
that the length of Line AB is 2.5 km and Z A = 2.5 Ω and the length of Line BC is 4.5 km
and ZB = 4.5 Ω. For a 3LG bolted fault at point C, IS and I1 are 0.176 80.02◦ kA and
1.576 −9.88◦ kA, respectively. Therefore, the impedance measured by the DR at Bus A can
be calculated using (8).

ZDR = Z A + ZB + K · ZB
= 2.5 + 4.5 + (8.93 −89.9◦ ) · 4.5
= 40.8 −80.02◦ Ω

where K is II1 = 8.93 −89.9◦ . Note that the DR at Bus A measures an impedance of 40.8
S
−80.02◦ Ω for a fault at C. This is larger than the actual impedance from A to C, which
is only 7 Ω. Based on the proposed approach, the feeder’s actual impedance to the fault
location can be calculated:
2.5 − 0
m= =1
2.5 − 0
40.8 −80.02◦ − 2.5
m1 = = 8.988 −83.51◦
7 − 2.5

m
Zact = ( ZDR − y1 + m1 x1 )
m1
1
= (40.8 −80.02◦ − 2.5 + m1 · 2.5) = 7 Ω
m1

which is equal to the actual impedance of the feeder to the faulty point. It is notable that
the infeed effect has no impact on the calculation.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 11 of 22

𝐷𝐺1 𝐼1 B
𝐼𝑆 +𝐼1
𝑆𝑆 A C
DR 𝑍𝐴 𝑍𝐵
𝐼𝑆
(a)
Impedance

𝑍𝐷𝑅
(𝑥3 , 𝑦3 ) = (7, 𝑍𝐷𝑅 )
𝑍𝐴𝐶
)
𝑍𝐴𝐵
(𝑥2 , 𝑦2 ) = (2.5, 2.5)

Distance, 𝑑
(𝑥1 , 𝑦1 ) = (0,0)
(b)

Figure 11. Infeed effect on distance protection: (a) radial distribution feeder with one DG; (b)
impedance seen by DR at A.

4.2. Method 2
Method 2 is based on creating two impedance–distance (ID) curves, similar to the plot
in Figure 5b. The first ID curve (ID Curve 1) represents the relation between the impedance
and the distance of the feeder with DGs, whereas the second ID curve (ID Curve 2)
represents the impedance–distance relation of the same feeder with one power source
(i.e., the main source at the beginning of the feeder/line). The impedance–distance curves
should be created offline and stored in the DR. Data storage and offline calculations (even
the online calculations if necessary) are not difficult for modern relays that contain large
memories and advanced processors. To find the actual line impedance, Zact , the measured
impedance, Zmeas , should be compared with the ID Curve 1 to find the corresponding
value of the distance. Then, the distance value is compared with the ID Curve 2 to get Zact ,
as shown in Figure 12. In the case of a 3LG fault, the following steps illustrate the plotting
of the line segment B0 C 0 in Figure 5b:
Step 1 Calculation of the Thevenin impedance at the fault location. For the given system,

+ ( ZS+ + Z + +
A ) ZDG +
ZTH = + + + + ZB · d (27)
ZS + Z A + ZDG

where d is the fractional distance along the length of feeder/line. Note that d = 1
at Bus C and d = 0 at Bus B. ZS+ and ZDG+
are the positive-sequence impedances
of the substation and DG, respectively. Z + +
A and ZB are the positive-sequence
impedances of Line AB and Line BC, respectively.
Step 2 Calculation of the fault current as
Vf
I3LG = + (28)
ZTH
+
where Vf is the prefault voltage at fault location and ZTH is the Thevenin
impedance of the positive-sequence network at the point of the fault from Step 1.
Step 3 The fault current contributions from each power source can be calculated using
the current divider formula as follows
+
ZDG
IS = I3LG · (29)
ZS+ + Z + +
A + ZDG
ZS+ + Z +
A
I1 = I3LG · (30)
ZS+ + Z+ +
A + ZDG

I1
Step 4 Calculation of the infeed constant, K = IS .
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 12 of 22

Step 5 Calculation of the impedance value corresponding to the value of d using the
following equation

ZDR = Z + +
A + (1 + K ) ZB · d (31)

Step 6 Changing the value of d in descending order (in small steps) from 1 to 0 and
repeating Steps 1–5 for each d value.
Step 7 Plotting the impedance vs. distance curve.
The flowchart and the simplified schematic diagram of the proposed Method 2 are
presented in Figure 12a,b, respectively.

Start

Store the impedance-

distance curves 𝑫𝑮
𝐼1 2

Measure V&I and

1
calculate 𝑍𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑺𝑺 𝐼𝑆 3
CT
CB
Compare 𝑍𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠 with F
ID curve-1 and find 𝑑 VT
Distance Relay (21)
𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑍
Compare 𝑑 with 𝐼
ID curve-2 to get 𝑍𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝒁𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒔
𝑉 𝑉/𝐼 𝐼𝐷 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 − 1
𝐼𝐷 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 − 1

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑑

No
𝑍𝑎𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝑍𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝒁𝒂𝒄𝒕 𝐼𝐷 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒
𝐼𝐷 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 −−2 2

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑑
Yes
≤ 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 CB
𝒁𝒔𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐶𝐵

(a) (b)
Figure 12. Method 2 for calculating the feeder impedance in presence of infeed effect: (a) flowchart
of Method 2; (b) simplified schematic diagram of Method 2.

4.3. Method 3
This method has the advantage of not requiring any offline calculations and is only
based on the local measurements. It also requires the location and impedance of the infeed
source to calculate the location of the fault. This data, in addition to the impedance and
length of the feeder/line, which are usually known and stored in the DR as “inputs”, can
be used to locate the fault without any need for measurements from the remote source.
Figure 13a is used to illustrate the principle of this method.

Strong sources
2 𝐼1+ + 𝐼2+
𝑆𝐵 𝐼2 𝐼1+ 1 2 3
𝑍𝐵 𝑍1+ 𝑍2+
+
1 𝐼1 𝐼1 + 𝐼2 3 𝑍𝐴+ 𝑍𝐵+ 𝐼2+
𝑆𝐴
𝑍𝐴 DR 𝑍1 𝑍2 𝑉𝑓
+ +
− 𝐸𝑆𝐴 −
𝐸𝑆𝐵
F
𝒅 −
𝒙

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Descriptive figure for Method 3 (a) radial distribution feeder; (b) the positive-sequence
equivalent circuit.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 13 of 22

The system in Figure 13a consists of two sources at Buses 1 and 2. The main source,
SA, is connected to Bus 1 and the second source, SB, is connected to Bus 2. SB can be either
a strong source or a weak source. A strong source may be a feeder from another substation
or a large synchronous generator, whereas a weak source may be an inverter-based resource
(IBRs), such as solar or wind power [23]. To clarify how the proposed method works, we
explain it for the “strong source” case under two fault types: 3LG fault and SLG faults.

4.3.1. 3LG Fault

For a 3LG fault, as shown in Figure 13a, fault currents from SA and SB contribute to
the total fault current. Each fault current is a positive-sequence current because the fault is
a symmetrical fault. The per-phase equivalent circuit of the system is shown in Figure 13b.
The impedance measured by the DR can be calculated as
I2
ZDR = Z1 + Z2 · d · (1 + ) (32)
I1

and the 3LG fault current at fault location can be calculated as

Vf
I3LG = + (33)
ZTH
+
where Vf is the prefault voltage at the fault location. ZTH is the positive-sequence Thevenin
impedance, which can be calculated as

+ (Z+ + +
A + Z1 ) ZB
ZTH = + Z2+ · d
Z A + Z1 + Z2+
+ +

= α+ + Z2+ · d (34)

Substituting (34) into (33) yields

Vf
I3LG = + (35)
α + Z2+ · d

Using the current-divider formula, the fault current contribution from SB can be calculated
as
Z+ +
A + Z1
I2 = I3LG ·
Z+
A + Z1+ + ZB+
+
= I3LG · γ (36)

Substituting (33) into (36) yields

Vf
I2 = + · γ+ (37)
α + Z2+ · d

Similarly, by substituting (37) into (32), the impedance ZDR is obtained:

 Vf 
α+ + Z2+ ·d
· γ+
ZDR = Z1+ + Z2+ · d · 1 +  (38)
I1

Solving (38) for d yields two possible solutions:

I1 Z1 + − I1 ZDR + I1 α+ + Vf γ+ ∓ β
d1 , d2 = − (39)
2 · I1 · Z2 +

where
q
β= I1 2 · (( Z1+ )2 + ZDR (−2Z1+ + ZDR + 2α+ ) + (α+ )2 ) + I1 · (−2Z1+ α + Vf γ+ · (2Z1+ − 2ZDR + 2α)) + Vf 2 (γ+ )2 (40)
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 14 of 22

Equation (39) has two solutions with different signs in which only the positive one (d2
in this case) would be valid. The distance from the SB location to the fault location is
calculated using (39). Thus, the actual positive-sequence impedance from the DR location
to the fault location can be calculated as

act
ZDR = Z1 + + Z2 + · d2 (41)
Therefore, the per-unit distance, x, from the DR location to the fault location is
act
ZDR
x= (42)
Z1 + Z2 +
+

4.3.2. SLG Fault

The SLG fault is the most common fault that occurs in electrical networks in general
and in overhead lines in particular. The SLG fault, along with line-to-line (LL) and line-to-
line-to-ground (LLG) faults, are called unbalanced faults. Symmetrical components must
be used for solving unbalanced faults.
The positive-sequence Thevenin impedance viewed from the fault location can be
computed using (34). The negative-sequence Thevenin impedance is usually equal to the
positive-sequence Thevenin impedance. Thus, it can be written as

− (Z− − −
A + Z1 ) ZB −
ZTH = − + Z2 · d
Z− −
A + Z1 + Z2
= α− + Z2− · d (43)

The zero-sequence Thevenin impedance is

0 ( Z0A + Z10 ) ZB0

ZTH = + Z20 · d
Z0A + Z10 + Z20
= α0 + Z20 · d (44)

The symmetrical components of the fault current are

Vf
If 0 = If + = If − = (45)
ZTH 0 + ZTH + + ZTH −

The fault current is

3Vf
I f = 3I f 0 = (46)
ZTH + ZTH + + ZTH −
0

Applying current-divider formula, the symmetrical components of the fault current contri-
bution from SB can be expressed as

Z0A + Z10
I20 = · I 0f
Z0A + Z10 + ZB0
= γ0 · I 0f (47)

Z+ +
A + Z1
I2+ = · I+
Z+
A + Z1+ + ZB+ f

= γ · I+
+
f (48)

Z− −
A + Z1
I2− = · I−
Z−
A + Z1− + ZB− f

= γ · I−
−
f (49)
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 15 of 22

Therefore, the fault current in phase A is

I2 = I2 0 + I2 + + I2 − = 3I2 + (50)
I2
Substituting for I2 in the infeed constant, K = I1 , yields

3I2 +
K =
I1
3γ+ I +
f
=
I1
3·Vf ·γ+
α + Z2 ·d+α + Z2+ ·d+α− + Z2− ·d
0 0 +
= (51)
I1

ZDR can be expressed based on d by substituting (51) into (38),

3· Vf · γ +
 
α0 + Z20 ·d+α+ + Z2+ ·d+α− + Z2− ·d
ZDR = Z1+ + Z2+ · d · 1 + (52)
 
I1


Solving for d yields

q
I1 Z2− Z1+ ∓ I12 [ a + 2Z2− (b − c − d + e + f + g) + h − i − j + k + L + m)] + r + s + v
d=− (53)
2I1 Z2+ ( Z20 + Z2+ + Z2− )

where

a = ( Z2− )2 · (( Z2+ )2 − 2Z1+ ZDR + ZDR

2
) (54)
b= ( Z1+ )2 · ( Z2+ + Z20 ) (55)
c= Z1+ Z2+ · (2ZDR + α0 + α+ + α− ) (56)
d= 2Z1+ Z20 ZDR (57)
e= Z2+ ZDR2
(58)
f = Z2+ ZDR α− (59)
g= ZDR ( Z2+ (α0 + α+ ) + Z20 ZDR ) (60)
h= ( Z1+ )2 · (( Z2+ )2 + 2Z2+ Z20 + ( Z20 )2 ) (61)
i= 2Z1+ ( Z2+ )2 · ( ZDR + α0 + α+ + α− ) (62)
j= 2Z1+ Z2+ Z20 · (2ZDR + α0 + α+ + α− ) (63)
k= ZDR · (−2Z1+ ( Z20 )2 ) + ( Z2+ )2 · ( ZDR + 2(α0 + α+ + α− )) (64)
L= ( Z2+ )2 · ((α− )2 + 2α− α+ + 2α− α0 + (α+ )2 + 2α+ α0 + (α0 )2 ) (65)
m= 2Z2+ Z20 · ( ZDR2
+ ZDR (α0 + α+ + α− ) + ( Z20 )2 ZDR
2
(66)
r= 6I1 Vf γ+ · ( Z2− Z2+ ( Z1+ − ZDR) + ( Z2+ )2 ( Z1+ − ZDR + α0 + α+ + α− ) (67)
s= Z2+ Z20 ( Z1+ − ZDR )) + 9Vf2 ( Z2+ )2 (γ+ )2 (68)
v= I1 [ Z1+ ( Z2+ + Z20 ) − ZDR ( Z20 + Z2+ + Z2− ) + Z2+ (α0 + α+ + α− )] + 3Vf Z2+ γ+ (69)

Equation (53) has two solutions with different signs in which only the positive one, d2 , is
valid. Moreover, it is important to note that ZDR is the corrected measured impedance, as
explained in Section 3.3. The distance from the SB location to the fault point is calculated
using (53). Thus, the actual positive-sequence impedance from the DR location to the fault
location can be calculated as
act
ZDR = Z1 + + Z2 + · d2 (70)
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 16 of 22

Therefore, the per-unit distance, x, from the DR location up to the fault location is
act
ZDR
x= (71)
Z1 + Z2 +
+

The flowchart and the simplified schematic diagram of the proposed Method 3 are
presented in Figure 14a,b, respectively.

Start

Read system data: 𝑺𝑩

𝐼2 2
• Line/feeder: impedance & length
• Sources: impedances & locations
1
𝑺𝑨 3
CT 𝐼1
Measure V&I and CB
calculate 𝑍𝐷𝑅 F
𝒙 𝒅
VT
Calculate Distance Relay (21)
𝑎𝑐𝑡
𝑑, 𝑥 & 𝑍𝐷𝑅 𝑴𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒚
System data:
𝑎𝑐𝑡
Compare 𝑍𝐷𝑅 with • Line/feeder: length & impedance.
settings • Sources: impedances & locations.

𝐼
𝒁𝑫𝑹
𝑉 𝑉/𝐼 Calculate
No
𝐹𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ?
𝒅, 𝒙 & 𝒁𝒂𝒄𝒕
𝑫𝑹

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝒁𝒂𝒄𝒕
𝑫𝑹
Yes 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝒁𝒔𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 ≤ CB
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐶𝐵

(a) (b)
Figure 14. Method 3 for calculating the feeder impedance in presence of infeed effect: (a) flowchart
of Method 3; (b) simplified schematic diagram of Method 3.

5. Simulation Results
A comparison of the three proposed methods including discussion is given in this
section.

5.1. Test System Description

The radial 12.47 kV, 60 Hz distribution feeder used in the simulation analysis is
shown in Figure 15. The distribution feeder has two segments; each segment is 10 km
long and has the following positive and zero sequence impedances, z1 = (0.9507 + j ·
1.948) · 10−4 Ω/m, and z0 = (0.2403 + j · 0.6019) · 10−3 Ω/m. The substation is fed by
an interconnected transmission grid through a step-down distribution transformer. The
upstream transmission grid and the distribution transformer are represented by a Thevenin
eq
equivalent voltage source with positive and zero sequence impedances of Z1 = 0.298 89.9◦
eq
Ω and Z0 = 0.233 89.9◦ Ω respectively. A 12.47 kV power source is also connected to the
feeder at Node B, which is 10 km from the substation or DR location. The power source
could be any type of strong power source, such as a synchronous generator, etc. In this
simulation, we intentionally consider a larger power source at Node B, i.e., 12.47 kV with
553.8 MVA short-circuit power, in order to have a power source with a higher infeed current
contribution during the fault. The feeder is protected by the DR with mho characteristics
phase and ground elements at the head of the line (i.e., at Node A). The studied distribution
system is modeled using PSCAD™/EMTDC™ [24].
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 17 of 22

Node 𝐵
12.47 kV Node 𝐴 Node 𝐶
DR
𝑒𝑞
𝑍1 , 𝑍0
𝑒𝑞 10 km 10 km Load

𝑧1 = ሺ0.9507 + j · 1.948ሻ · 10−4 Ω/m

𝑧0 = ሺ0.2403 + j · 0.6019ሻ · 10−3 Ω/m

Figure 15. One-line diagramof a simplified distribution feeder.

5.2. Distance Relay Settings

Two zones are set to cover the entire feeder (from Node A to Node C). Zones 1 and 2
are set to cover 80% and 130% of the positive-sequence feeder impedance, respectively. The
positive-sequence line impedance is 4.3352 64◦ Ω. The first and second zone reaches are
therefore 0.8 × 4.3352 64◦ = 3.47 64◦ Ω and 1.3 × 4.3352 64◦ = 5.64 at 64◦ Ω, respectively.
Zones 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 16 with green and blue mho characteristic in the complex
impedance plane, respectively. For the faults located at 0–80% from the DR, the DR operates
immediately. However in practice, fault isolation requires a few cycles (i.e., 6–18 cycles at
60 Hz or 0.1–0.3 s) depending on the relay decision-making process and the speed of the
CB [20]. The operating time for Zone 2 is typically in the range of 0.4–0.5 s [25]. Therefore,
the Zone 1 time delay is set to be 0.1 s, whereas the operating time for Zone 2 is 0.45 s.
The zero-sequence compensation factor K0 is calculated and stored in the GDE in
order to allow the reach settings to be specified in terms of positive-sequence impedance
[7]. K0 can be calculated using (15)

Z0 − Z1
K0 = = 0.6647 6.38◦
Z1

Converting the impedance from the primary side to the secondary side of the CT and
VT does not have any impact on the proposed method, and thus we directly utilize the
impedance on the primary side in this paper.

5
Zone 2 unit
4
ZL
Zone 1 unit
Reactance, X

2
Line
impedance
1 vector

-1
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Resistance, R

Figure 16. Operating characteristic of distance protection located at Node A.

5.3. Study Cases

In order to carefully analyze the proposed methods, many fault scenarios with dif-
ferent fault locations and fault types were investigated. The case studies were selected
to test the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed methods in measuring the feeder’s
actual positive-sequence impedance in the event of faults at different distances along the
distribution feeder inside and outside of the protection zones of the distance protection.
In all of the case studies, there are two power sources: the distribution substation at the
head of the distribution feeder (i.e., at Node A) and a power source connected to Node B,
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 18 of 22

as shown in Figure 15. The study cases are for bolted 3LG and SLG faults at a distance of
40%, 70%, 100%, and 140% of the distribution feeder length. The fault locations and the
DR scheme used in the case studies are shown in Figure 17.

Zone 2
= 130% 𝑍𝐿

Node 𝐴 Node 𝐶
Zone 1 = 80% 𝑍𝐿 0f
10 km 10 km
DR
Node 𝐵
𝐹1 @ 40% 𝑜𝑓 𝑍𝐿
𝐹2 @ 70% 𝑜𝑓 𝑍𝐿
𝐹3 @ 100% 𝑜𝑓 𝑍𝐿
𝐹4 @ 140% 𝑜𝑓 𝑍𝐿

Figure 17. DR scheme using two protection zones and fault locations.

5.3.1. Case I: Fault at a Distance of 40% of the Feeder’s Length

The objective of this case is to establish the effectiveness of the proposed methods in
the event of a fault between the substation and the power source at Node B (i.e., within
the boundaries of Zone 1). The impedance seen by the DR for a 3LG fault located at F1
(see Figure 17 for fault locations) is shown in Figure 18a. Since the infeed effect does not
affect the reading of the DR, the measured impedance is correct and is the actual positive-
sequence impedance between the DR location and fault location. Therefore, the Zone 1
element provides tripping with a time of 0.1 s, which is the correct function of the DR.
Similarly, the impedance trajectory in the case of the SLG fault is illustrated in Figure 18b.
Zc denotes the conventionally measured impedance.

5 Zone 2 5 Zone 2

4 Zone 1 4 Zone 1
jX ( )
jX ( )

3 Zc 3

2 2

1 1 Zc
0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 -1 0 1 2 3 4
R( ) R( )
(a) (b)
Figure 18. Impedance trajectory for (a) 3LG and (b) SLG faults at 40% of the feeder’s length.

5.3.2. Case II: Fault at a Distance of 70% of the Feeder’s Length

The objective of this case is to establish both the effectiveness and accuracy of the
proposed methods on the DR’s measurements. The DR performance in the case of 3LG
and SLG faults is shown in Figure 19a,b, respectively. We observed that the impedance
measured by the conventional DR, Zc , is out of the operating zones of the DR, although the
fault is within the operating characteristic of Zone 1. However, the impedance measured
by the proposed methods, Zm1 (Method 1), Zm2 (Method 2), and Zm3 (Method 3), are all
located within the Zone 1 area. Numerically, the measured impedance Zc to the fault at the
DR location for a 3LG fault is 2.39 pu, rather than the actual positive-sequence impedance
of 0.7 pu. By contrast, the impedance measured by the proposed methods Zm1 , Zm2 , and
Zm2 are all equal to 0.7 pu. The measured impedance Zc is 3.69 pu for a SLG fault at F2,
while the measured impedance by the proposed methods Zm1 , Zm2 , and Zm2 are 0.7 , 0.7,
and 0.68 pu, which are the same as, or close to, the actual positive-sequence impedance
from the DR location to the fault point F2.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 19 of 22

12 12
10 10
Zm2 Zm2 Zc
8 Zone 2 8 Zone 2
Z

jX ( )

jX ( )
Zm3 c
6 6
Z
4 4 m3
Z
m1
2 2
Z Zone 1
0 Zone 1 m1 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
R( ) R( )
(a) (b)
Figure 19. Impedance trajectories of the proposed and conventional methods for (a) 3LG and (b) SLG
faults at 70% of the feeder’s length.

5.3.3. Case III: Fault at a Distance of 100% of the Feeder’s Length

In this case, the fault location is outside of Zone 1 but within the boundaries of Zone 2.
As shown in Figure 20a,b, Zm1 , Zm2 , and Zm3 trajectories move into Zone 2. However, the
Zc trajectory is out of the operating zones of the DR. Therefore, Zm1 , Zm2 , and Zm3 reflect
the correct impedance trajectory. Thus, the DR trip is delayed by the time setting of Zone 2,
which is set at 0.45 s. The measured Zc for a 3LG fault at F3 is 5.26 pu, whereas Zm1 , Zm2 ,
and Zm3 are all equal to 1 pu for the same fault. Similarly, the measured Zc is 8.49 pu for
SLG fault, whereas Zm1 , Zm2 , and Zm3 are 1.0 , 1.0, and 1.01 pu, which are the same as, or
close to, the actual positive-sequence impedance from the DR location to the fault point F3.

25 25
20 Zc
20
Z Z Zm2
c
jX ( )

m2
jX ( )

15 Zm3 15

10 10 Zone 1

5 5 Zm1 Zm3
Zone 2 Zm1 Zone 2
Zone 1 0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
R( ) R( )
(a) (b)
Figure 20. Impedance trajectories of the proposed and conventional methods for (a) 3LG and (b) SLG
faults at 100% of the feeder’s length.

5.3.4. Case IV: Fault at a Distance of 140% of the Feeder’s Length

The impedance trajectories seen by the DR in the case of 3LG and SLG faults at F4 are
plotted in Figure 21a,b, respectively. In this case, the fault location is outside the operating
characteristic of Zone 2. As shown in Figure 21a,b, Zm1 , Zm2 , and Zm3 are outside Zone 2 as
expected. Thus, the DR does not trip, reflecting a correct decision of the DR. The measured
Zc for a 3LG fault at F4 is 9.09 pu, whereas Zm1 , Zm2 , and Zm3 are all equal to 1.4 pu for
the same fault. Similarly, the measured Zc is 14.84 pu for SLG fault, while Zm1 , Zm2 , and
Zm3 are 1.4, 1.4, and 1.48 pu which are the same as, or close to, the actual positive-sequence
impedance from the DR location to the fault point F4.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 20 of 22

40 40
Z Zm2 Zc
30 m2 30
Z

jX ( )
Z

jX ( )
c
m3
20 20

10 Zm1 10 Z Zm3
m1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
R( ) R( )
(a) (b)
Figure 21. Impedance trajectories of the proposed and conventional methods for (a) 3LG and (b) SLG
faults at 140% of the feeder’s length.

The results of the different case studies are summarized in Table 1. The impedance
values are in pu based on the magnitude of the positive-sequence impedance of the
distribution feeder (| Zbase | = 4.3352 Ω). Zact in Column 4 is the actual positive-sequence
impedance in pu of the distribution feeder. Zm1 , Zm2 , and Zm3 , in Columns 6–8, are the
measured impedances by the proposed Methods 1–3, respectively. Similar observations
were made for both line–line and line–line–ground faults.

Table 1. Distance relay performance under varying system conditions.

Fault Fault Zone Z act Measured Impedance, pu

Type Location Protection (pu) Zc Zm1 Zm2 Zm3
F1 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
F2 1 0.7 2.39 0.7 0.7 0.7
3LG
F3 2 1.0 5.26 1.0 1.0 1.0
Out of
F4 1.4 9.09 1.4 1.4 1.4
zones
F1 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
F2 1 0.7 3.69 0.7 0.7 0.68
SLG
F3 2 1.0 8.49 1.0 1.0 1.01
Out of
F4 1.4 14.84 1.4 1.4 1.48
zones

5.4. Comparison of Methods

Each of the proposed methods has its own technique for determining the location
of the fault. Different features of the proposed methods including the required data and
calculations, cost, and results accuracy are compared to clarify the differences between
them.
1. Required data and calculations: All three methods require local measurements and
the system’s data in order to determine the fault location in the presence of an infeed
current. In addition to the system data and local measurements, the first and second
methods require the results of offline calculations in order to determine the fault
location. The first method requires calculating the offline fault current values as part
of the data to be stored in the DR. Similarly, the second method requires calculating
offline fault currents to create ID curves. The third method has an advantage over
the first two methods in that it does not require any offline calculations, and its
functionality entirely depends on local measurements.
2. Cost: The functionality of three methods proposed in this paper do not require the
addition of any measuring or communication devices. In other words, the proposed
methods do not incur any additional hardware cost to the current system.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 21 of 22

3. Accuracy of the results: One of the most important indicators of the success for any
method is its accuracy. To this end, all of the proposed methods were tested using
PSCAD™/EMTDC™ software. The results prove the capability of the proposed
methods in locating the faults with high accuracy in the presence of an infeed effect.
Method 3 is the least accurate due to its dependence purely on online measurements
with no offline calculations, but the drop in accuracy may be counter-balanced by its
other advantages.
A summary comparison of the proposed methods is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of the proposed methods.

Proposed Required Data Cost Accuracy of

Methods and Calculations the Results
Method 1 • Local measurements Very low Very high
• System data
• Offline calculations
Method 2 • Local measurements Very low Very high
• System data
• Offline calculations
Method 3 • Local measurements Very low High
• System data

6. Conclusions
Increasing the amount of renewable generation in a distribution system increases the
infeed current, which challenges the current protection scheme. Three different solutions
for addressing the maloperation of distance relays in power systems caused by the infeed
effect are presented in this paper. Previous works that address the same issue with distance
relay are either costly or have low reliability. To overcome these challenges, the methods
proposed in this paper not only accurately estimate the distance to the fault in the presence
of the infeed effect but also are more reliable compared to the former solutions. Furthermore,
they are applicable for distance relays, in either radial distribution feeders or transmission
lines. Lastly, the proposed methods do not need any peripherals, such as a communications
link, to operate and are thus more economical compared to the former solutions. The
accuracy of the proposed methods are examined using different case studies. The obtained
results indicate the potential superiority of the proposed methods over similar proposed
methods.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.H. and M.C.; methodology, F.H.; software, F.H.; val-
idation, F.H.; formal analysis, F.H.; investigation, F.H.; resources, M.C.; writing—original draft
preparation, F.H.; writing—review and editing, F.H. and M.C.; visualization, F.H.; supervision, M.C.
Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gonen, T. Electric Power Distribution Engineering; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; p. 768.
2. Wheeler, K.W.; Elsamahy, M.; Faried, S.O. A Novel Reclosing Scheme for Mitigation of Distributed Generation Effects on
Overcurrent Protection. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2018, 33, 981–991. doi:10.1109/TPWRD.2017.2743693.
3. Tong, X.; Liu, J. Fault Processing Based on Local Intelligence. In Fault Location and Service Restoration for Electrical Distribution
Systems; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; Chapter 2, p. 32.
4. El-Khattam, W.; Sidhu, T.S. Restoration of Directional Overcurrent Relay Coordination in Distributed Generation Systems
Utilizing Fault Current Limiter. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2008, 23, 576–585. doi:10.1109/TPWRD.2008.915778.
Energies 2021, 14, 4652 22 of 22

5. Singh, M.; Vishnuvardhan, T.; Srivani, S.G. Adaptive protection coordination scheme for power networks under penetration of
distributed energy resources. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2016, 10, 3919–3929.
6. Usama, M.; Mokhlis, H.; Moghavvemi, M.; Mansor, N.; Alotaibi, M; Muhammad, M.; Bajwa, A. A Comprehensive Review on
Protection Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of Renewable Energy Sources on Interconnected Distribution Networks. IEEE Access
2021, 9, 35740–35765. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3061919.
7. Sinclair, A.; Finney, D.; Martin, D.; Sharma, P. Distance Protection in Distribution Systems: How It Assists With Integrating
Distributed Resources. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2014, 50, 2186–2196. doi:10.1109/TIA.2013.2288426.
8. Chang, J.; Gara, L.; Fong, P.; Kyosey, Y. Application of a multifunctional distance protective IED in a 15KV distribution network.
In Proceedings of the 2013 66th Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, College Station, TX, USA, 8–11 April 2013;
pp. 150–171. doi:10.1109/CPRE.2013.6822034.
9. Enayati, A.; Ortmeyer, T.H. A novel approach to provide relay coordination in distribution power systems with multiple
reclosers. In Proceedings of the 2015 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Charlotte, NC, USA, 4–6 October 2015; pp. 1–6.
doi:10.1109/NAPS.2015.7335121.
10. Tsimtsios, A.M.; Nikolaidis, V.C. Setting Zero-Sequence Compensation Factor in Distance Relays Protecting Distribution Systems.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2018, 33, 1236–1246. doi:10.1109/TPWRD.2017.2762465.
11. Ziegler, G. Numerical Distance Protection: Principles and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
12. Blackburn, J.L.; Domin, T.J. Protective Relaying: Principles and Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 600–602.
13. Gers, J.M.; Holmes, E.J. Protection of Electricity Distribution Networks; IET: London, UK, 2011; Volume 47.
14. Biswas, S.; Centeno, V. A communication based infeed correction method for distance protection in distribution systems. In
Proceedings of the 2017 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Morgantown, WV, USA, 17–19 September 2017; pp. 1–5.
doi:10.1109/NAPS.2017.8107226.
15. Uzubi, U.; Ekwue, A.; Ejiogu, E. Adaptive distance relaying: Solution to challenges of conventional protection schemes in the
presence of remote infeeds. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2020, 30, e12330.
16. Mishra, P.; Pradhan, A.K.; Bajpai, P. Adaptive Distance Relaying for Distribution Lines Connecting Inverter-Interfaced Solar PV
Plant. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2021, 68, 2300–2309. doi:10.1109/TIE.2020.2975462.
17. Thakre, M.P.; Kale, V.S. An adaptive approach for three zone operation of digital distance relay with Static Var Compensator
using PMU. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 77, 327–336. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.11.049.
18. Tsimtsios, A.M.; Korres, G.N.; Nikolaidis, V.C. A pilot-based distance protection scheme for meshed distribution systems with
distributed generation. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 105, 454–469.
19. Anderson, P.M. Power System Protection; Wiley-IEEE Press: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1999; p. 379.
20. Kezunovic, M.; Ren, J.; Lotfifard, S. Design, Modeling and Evaluation of Protective Relays for Power Systems; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.
21. Horowitz, S.H.; Phadke, A.G. Power System Relaying; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; p. 111.
22. Nikolaidis, V.C.; Tsimtsios, A.M.; Safigianni, A.S. Investigating Particularities of Infeed and Fault Resistance Effect on Distance
Relays Protecting Radial Distribution Feeders With DG. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 11301–11312. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2804046.
23. Jones, K.W.; Pourbeik, P.; Kobet, G.; Berner, A.; Fischer, N.; Huang, F.; Holbach, J.; Jensen, M.; O’Connor, J.; Patel, M.; et al. Impact
of Inverter Based Generation on Bulk Power System Dynamics and Short-Circuit Performance; Technical Report PES-TR68; IEEE Power
& Energy Society: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
24. International, M.H. PSCAD Version 5.0; Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2021.
25. Ibrahim, M.A. Disturbance Analysis for Power Systems, 1st ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; p. 223.