IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO.

2, APRIL 2012 459

Overcurrent Protection for the IEEE
34-Node Radial Test Feeder
Hamed B. Funmilayo, Student Member, IEEE, James A. Silva, Student Member, IEEE, and
Karen L. Butler-Purry, Senior Member, IEEE
AbstractThe IEEE 34-node radial test feeder is a benchmark
circuit for validating results from existing and novel load-ow al-
gorithms. This paper discusses the addition of overcurrent pro-
tection (OCP) to the test feeder using off-the-shelf protective de-
vices. The OCP scheme includes a recloser near the substation and
fuses at the laterals. These OCP devices represent the conventional
types present in most distribution systems. DIgSILENTPower Fac-
tory 13.1 was used to conduct the load-ow analysis, customize
the OCP devices, and perform overcurrent protection studies on
the test feeder. Recloser-fuse and fuse-fuse coordination tests were
conducted. Results from the coordination studies showed that the
assigned OCP devices provided adequate trip coordination for all
fault types on the test feeder. The short-circuit results and overcur-
rent protective device data provided in this paper may serve as an
extension to the test feeders existing load-ow data.
Index TermsLoad-ow analysis, overcurrent protection,
power distribution lines, power distribution protection, software
tools.
I. INTRODUCTION
T
HE IEEE 34-NODE radial test feeder belongs to a group
of existing radial test feeders for distribution system anal-
ysis [1]. Typically, the major use of these radial test feeders is
to provide load-ow data which serve as a reference for vali-
dating load-ow results from existing and novel load-ow al-
gorithms intended for radial distribution systems. Over the past
few decades, the need for increased reliability and reduced cost
of power delivery at the distribution level has resulted in the ad-
dition of distributed generation (DG) to radial distribution cir-
cuits [2][8]. Given the occurrence of these additions to radial
distribution systems, there is a need to extend the use of the ra-
dial test feeders for various studies in order to assess the im-
pact of DG on radial distribution systems. These studies can in-
clude overcurrent protection (OCP) studies which require nom-
inal current from the load-ow studies and short-circuit current.
However, the IEEE 34-node test feeder does not presently pro-
vide short-circuit data. For this reason, it would be necessary
Manuscript received April 04, 2008; accepted November 12, 2008. Date of
publication March 06, 2012; date of current version March 28, 2012. This work
was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant
ECS-02-18309. Paper no. TPWRD-00792-2007.
The authors are with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Depart-
ment, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 77843 USA (e-mail:
hamed.funmilayo@centerpointenergy.com; james_silva@selinc.com; kl-
butler@ece.tamu.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2186181
to add short-circuit results to the test feeder to include overcur-
rent-protective (OCP) devices. The addition of these data to the
test feeder will enhance the comparison of various short-circuit
calculation algorithms and facilitate further studies regarding
overcurrent protection for radial distribution systems.
Several authors have addressed various OCP studies for radial
distribution systems. For example, the authors in [2][4], [7],
and [9] provided OCP schemes using example radial systems
with DG while [5] and [9][16] discussed OCP for additional
components found on distribution systems, such as capacitors.
The IEEE 34-node radial test feeder can serve as a common
circuit on which comprehensive OCP studies that are specic
to radial distribution systems are assessed.
In this paper, a conventional OCP scheme is proposed for the
IEEE 34-node radial test feeder. OCP devices are assigned at
strategic locations of the feeder. The coordination data that will
allow for easy comparison and assessment of results from the
overcurrent protection scheme are also provided. In Section II
of this paper, the IEEE 34-node radial test feeder and the pro-
cedure for selecting the OCP devices are described. This sec-
tion involves an initial comparison of the steady-state load ow
and short-circuit results, from DIgSILENT PowerFactory 13.1,
to the reference results of the test feeder. The load ow and
short-circuit study results pertinent to the OCP study are also
given. In Section III, discussions on the coordination studies (in
terms of temporary and permanent faults) for various fault situ-
ations are presented. The nal list of the selected OCP devices
for the test feeder is also provided in this section. Finally, the
conclusions are given in Section IV.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. IEEE 34-Node Test Feeder System
The IEEE 34-node radial test feeder systemshown in Fig. 1 is
a standard circuit that models the unbalanced nature observed in
distribution systems (i.e., the circuit consists of one-phase and
three-phase lines). The systemoperates on a 2.5-MVAbase with
a 69/24.9-kV substation transformer rating and a 24.9/4.16-kV
step-down transformer rating at one of the downstream laterals.
Table I shows the specications for the step-down transformer
(XFM-1) at lateral 5, and the substation transformer (not illus-
trated in Fig. 1). The circuit consists of six spot loads and 19
distributed loads modeled as constant power, impedance, and
current loads. The spot loads are all three-phase loads while the
distributed loads consist of 12 one-phase, 3 two-phase, and 4
three-phase loads. Further information regarding the systems
loads are provided in Tables IX and X. The systems feeders
0885-8977/$31.00 2012 IEEE
460 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
Fig. 1. IEEE 34-node test feeder system (modied from [17]).
TABLE I
TRANSFORMER PROFILES FOR THE IEEE 34-NODE TEST FEEDER
were modeled in DIgSILENT using the conductors 4 4 prim-
itive impedance matrix, which were derived from the 3 3 un-
balanced phase impedance matrix provided in [17].
As observed in Fig. 1, the test feeder includes components,
such as the capacitor banks, a step-down transformer, as well as
the dened main feeder and laterals. These components all re-
quire some form of overcurrent protection. There are a total of 6
one-phase laterals labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8; and 4 three-phase
laterals labeled 5, 7, 8, and 11. Laterals 5 and 7 are completely
three-phase lines while lateral 8 combines a three-phase line
with a one-phase line. Also, laterals 5 and 7 are of special in-
terest due to their unique characteristics with respect to the main
feeder. Lateral 5, for example, operates on a different voltage
level, 4.16 kV, and produces an undervoltage at its farthest node
of 890. The reason for the undervoltage is mostly due to the
high magnitude of the constant-current spot load and the line
losses along the length of the lateral. Lateral 7, on the other
hand, is the only location with reactive compensation as given
in [17]. The two capacitor banks identied in [17] are dened
as Cap-844 and Cap-848, and they are the extensions of nodes
844 and 848, respectively. Finally, Lateral 11, dened as the line
section from node 836840, shares similar characteristics to the
main feeder. However, using some engineering judgment men-
tioned in [18][20], the line section is considered a lateral be-
cause of its location and proximity to the other three-phase lat-
erals with components. This situation implies that in the event
of a fault at that location (836840), only that section will be
isolated and the systems reliability is enhanced.
1) Overview of Procedure for Including Overcurrent Protec-
tive Devices in the Radial Feeder: The primary goal of this
paper is to provide overcurrent protection for the IEEE 34-node
test feeder. This study involves determining the satisfactory rat-
ings and settings for the OCP devices in the system to accom-
modate different fault levels. Customized versions of the OCP
device models available in PSS/ADEPT 5.3.2s protection data-
base were modeled in DIgSILENT to conduct the protection co-
ordination study.
To begin with, the recloser was placed near the substation
while a fuse was placed on each lateral. The settings of the OCP
devices were then determined after load-ow and short-circuit
studies were performed. The IEEEs short-circuit result was not
directly available in [17], so it was obtained via email fromProf.
W. H. Kersting. References [9], [13], [17], [19], [21], and [22]
addressed fault impedance values for obtaining the minimum
fault current level at the main and laterals. One reason for ap-
plying a minimum fault with some fault impedance value was
to distinguish between a minimum and maximum fault on some
of the single-phase laterals present in the circuit such as laterals
1, 3, and 4. The short-circuit studies were performed using a
20- fault impedance value based on reasons provided in [9]
and [22]. The data utilized in providing coordination for the
IEEE 34-node radial test feeder include the timecurrent curve
(TCC) database of the protective devices, the maximum nom-
inal current, as well as the minimum and maximum steady-state
fault currents (shunt and branch) from the laterals and the main
feeder. Only one node was faulted at any point in time for each
fault scenario observed.
B. Steady-State Analysis
In analyzing the system protection at the distribution level,
the load-ow and short-circuit results are essential for deter-
mining the ratings for the protective devices to be employed in
the system. The IEEEs model circuit in [17] uses an ideal bal-
anced voltage source which is directly connected to node 800 at
1.05 p.u. and 0/-120.0/120 , for the load-ow analysis. For the
short-circuit studies, the IEEEs model circuit assumes a voltage
source at 1.0 p.u. with the substation transformer applied be-
tween the voltage source and node 800. Therefore, the load-ow
and short-circuit studies results were determined using two cir-
cuits. In this paper, the load-ow and short-circuit studies were
implemented on a single model circuit. The reason is because
the short-circuit studies method present in DIgSILENT initially
calculates the prefault load ow. This condition implies that
the prefault load-ow results must match the load-ow results.
The following subsections present a detail of the load-ow and
short-circuit analysis as implemented in this paper.
1) Load-Flow Data: The load-ow study of the IEEE
34-node radial test feeder was implemented in DIgSILENT
to match the recommended prole at node 800 (1.05 p.u. per
phase). In order to match this prole, the substation transformer
taps in DIgSILENT were adjusted and xed at 12, 10, and
9. The voltage prole obtained on using the xed substa-
tion transformer taps were 1.05/1.046/1.047 p.u. with angles
0.002/-119.463/120.808 for phases a, b, and c, respectively.
The taps could be adjusted in 32 steps from 16 to 16. The
negative orientation of the tap value indicates an increase in the
voltage prole at the controlled node (node 800).
Table II presents the load-ow results comparing the IEEEs
maximum nominal branch current through the OCP devices to
those of DIgSILENT. Two terms From Node and To Node
are used in expressing the branch currents orientation. The
From Node is the node that the nominal branch current ows
out from and the To Node is the node that the nominal branch
current ows into. The percentage error difference between the
branch current results from the IEEE and those from DIgSI-
LENT are located in the last column of the table. The error
values were calculated using the IEEE results as the base. The
FUNMILAYO et al.: OVERCURRENT PROTECTION FOR THE IEEE 34-NODE RADIAL TEST FEEDER 461
TABLE II
MAXIMUM UPSTREAM BRANCH CURRENT FROM
THE LOAD-FLOW RESULT
percentage error values for the branch current results obtained
in DIgSILENT are within a 2% margin from the IEEE results.
2) Short-Circuit Data: As discussed earlier, the circuit model
used for conducting the short-circuit studies was the same as that
used for the load ow. DIgSILENTs complete method was
used for the short-circuit study. This method initially conducts
the prefault load ow before the short-circuit values are calcu-
lated. The transformers taps for each phase remained xed at
the values discussed in Section II-B1. The voltage regulators
RG10 and RG11, which are located within the circuit, were
modeled without the line drop compensation parameters pro-
vided in [17]. Both regulators maintained their tap values during
the short-circuit analysis and their operation is in agreement
with [12].
To begin with the short-circuit analysis, the branch fault cur-
rent owing through each OCP device was used for determining
the operating times of the device during maximum and min-
imum faults. The maximum fault was applied at the nearest
node downstream of the OCP device while the minimum fault
was applied to the farthest node downstream of the OCP de-
vice. A three-phase-to-ground fault was used as the maximum
fault for the three-phase lines while a single-line-to-ground fault
without impedance was applied at the one-phase laterals. For the
minimum fault, a single-line-to-ground fault with a 20- fault
impedance was used at all laterals. Tables III and IV provide the
comparison of results from the IEEEs maximum and minimum
shunt fault current, within the vicinity of the OCP devices, to the
results generated from DIgSILENT.
Results from Tables III and IV indicate that the percentage
errors observed between the fault-current values are within 10%
for the faulted locations. The IEEE* label shown in the tables
implies that the reference short-circuit fault current values were
obtained via correspondence with the author of [17] but have
not been made publicly available in [17].
The percentage errors observed during the fault studies are
larger when compared to the nominal branch current values.
One reason for this difference is because the same circuit was
used to conduct load-ow and short-circuit studies as discussed
in Section II-B. Hence, the short-circuit calculation accounted
for the impedances which were introduced to model substa-
tion transformer tap positions to achieve the 1.05-p.u. prole
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM FAULT CURRENT TO IEEE RESULTS
TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF MINIMUM FAULT CURRENT TO IEEE RESULTS
at node 800. Another noticeable difference in Table IV is that
the percentage errors were greater near the transformer loca-
tionsnodes 800 and 890. The reason is because DIgSILENT
requires an extra parameter called the short-circuit voltage (%)
in addition to the X/Rratio value provided. The typical short-cir-
cuit voltage value which corresponded with the respective kilo-
volt-amperes of the transformer was assumed from [23]. The
shunt fault current magnitude near the transformers decreased as
the assumed short-circuit voltage value was increased. For ex-
ample, when the assumed short-circuit voltage value for XFM-1
(value of 4.5%) was approximated to 5% (0.5% increase), the
shunt fault current magnitude at node 890 decreased by 14 A
(3% decrease). These reasons account for the higher percentage
errors at nodes 800 and 890.
C. Selection of Overcurrent Protective Devices
The selection of OCP devices was determined according to
recommendations from [9], [10], [19], and [24]. It was also
stated in [9] and [19] that momentary or temporary faults
occur more often than permanent faults at the distribution
system level. With this in mind, the selected recloser was set
to operate prior to the fuses for faults downstream of the fuses.
This operation allows the faults to clear since they temporarily
and consequently save the fuses from operating unnecessarily.
The previously described process called fuse-saving was
implemented at most of the fuse locations selected for the test
462 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
Fig. 2. IEEE-34-node test feeder system with protective devices.
feeder. Fig. 2 illustrates the IEEE 34-node radial test feeder
with the OCP devices assigned at strategic locations.
As observed in Fig. 2, the boxes labeled F signify the fuses
and the box labeled R signies the recloser. The recloser was
placed on the main feeder while the fuses were placed on the
laterals. In this OCP scheme, the recloser also acts as the nal
backup protection for the systemduring a permanent fault on the
laterals. The following subsections describe the requirements
for the recloser and fuse types.
1) Recloser and Load-Side Fuses: The reclosers coordina-
tion range must provide adequate time to sense all faults that
may occur at any node downstreamof the feeder. Atriple single-
phase electronic recloser is preferable as opposed to a three-
phase recloser since most of the loads were one phase. Although
the three-phase recloser has a longer reach, its operation during
a fault affects all three phases of the feeder simultaneously and,
therefore, provides less exibility for the loads to operate inde-
pendently. The triple single-phase recloser as dened in [9] is
an electronically controlled unit that can operate in three dif-
ferent modes, namely: 1) single phase; 2) single-phase trip with
three-phase lockout; and 3) three-phase mode. These modes
provide some additional exibility to the recloser operation.
Based on recommendations from [9], similar types of fuse
links were selected as OCP devices for all branches within the
same nominal current range. The load-side fuses (fuse cutouts
with fuse links) had a voltage rating equal to or higher than that
of the maximum bus voltage at the fuse location. Also, the inter-
rupting current rating was larger than the maximumsymmetrical
fault current at the location of the fuse. In this paper, the selected
load-side fuses were of types K, T, and X expulsion fuse links
with external cut outs, and they presented the most effective co-
ordination range with the reclosers instantaneous settings.
2) Transformer Fusing: Due to the presence of a step-down
transformer (XFM-1) on lateral 5, several protection options
described in [9] and [15] are available in order to assign the
proper protection for the transformer and the load on that lat-
eral. The rst choice is an internal fuse link, which can be em-
bedded within the transformer and coordinated with a secondary
breaker. This option is economical but it does not allow the fuse
to be eld replaceable after a fault event in the vicinity of the
transformer. A second and moderately economical option is to
provide an external expulsion cutout in place of the internal fuse.
In this case, the fuse can be replaced after all faults, and this
option is well suited for low-current faults. The last option de-
scribed involves a combination of a current-limiting fuse in se-
ries with an expulsion cutout. This method would account for
low and high current faults but it is rather expensive to install.
Given the list of available options described in the last para-
graph, the choice of protection provided for XFM-1 consisted
of a type T external expulsion cutout on the transformers
primary side. Some transformer fusing application principles,
such as voltage rating, short-circuit interrupting rating, ampere
rating, and the speed characteristic of the fuse were considered.
The voltage rating of the fuse must be equal to or greater than
the voltage at the transformer location. As for the ampere rating,
the value should be the same or exceed the anticipated normal
loading level for the transformer. Similarly, the symmetrical
short-circuit interrupting rating of the transformers primary
fuse should match or exceed the maximum possible fault
current at the transformer location. Second, the transformer pri-
mary fuse must be capable of withstanding the inrush currents
generated whenever the transformer is energized. The fuse
must also protect against transformer faults and secondary-side
faults (through faults). Proper assessment of transformer faults
requires information about the transformer impedance, kilo-
volt-ampere rating, and the nominal voltage. Similarly for
assessing the secondary-side fault currents, knowledge of the
transformer winding conguration is needed. For any secondary
fault condition, the value of the fault current observed at the
transformer secondary winding differs from the fault current
observed at the transformers primary side. This difference
is highly dependent on the transformer connection type. The
symmetrical (wye-wye) connection across the transformers
winding lends itself to a 11 p.u. ratio for evaluating the fault
current at the transformer primary [13][15]. The selected fuse
must then coordinate with the upstream recloser to maintain
fuse savings. Moreover, the fuse must coordinate with the OCP
device downstream of the lateral to serve as its backup device.
This protection option should provide adequate sensitivity for
the faults on lateral 5.
3) Capacitor Fusing: Capacitors are sources of transient
fault current owing to their mode of operation (charging and
discharging) at very high frequencies [11], [14]. However, in
the event of a failed capacitor unit (at steady-state frequency),
the type of protection fuse required must promptly isolate the
failed capacitor unit on the line prior to the operation of any
other protective device on the system. The rating for such a
fuse is dependent on the connection type of the capacitor unit,
the operating voltage, and the maximum line-to-ground fault
current at the capacitor location [9], [11], [14].
In the IEEE 34-node test feeder, the units of the capacitor
bank are arranged in a grounded wye-wye conguration. Ac-
cording to[9] and [11], the current through each capacitor unit
on each phase is rated at 135% of the nominal phase current.
This overrating is necessary in order to prevent the capacitor
fuses from being damaged by inrush currents that may occur
during capacitor bank switching and lightning surges. Also, for
the worst case scenario of a capacitor unit failure, a one-phase
grounded fault current without fault impedance is assumed as
the capacitor fault value [11].
Two fusing methods are available for protecting the capacitor
banks as discussed in [9]. These methods are group fusing and
individual fusing. Individual fusing involves one fuse protecting
FUNMILAYO et al.: OVERCURRENT PROTECTION FOR THE IEEE 34-NODE RADIAL TEST FEEDER 463
TABLE V
MINIMUM FAULT CURRENT OBSERVED AT THE RECLOSER
FOR THE MINIMUM FAULT AT EACH LATERAL
each capacitor unit, and this method is mostly implemented for
substation capacitor banks. In group fusing, one fuse protects
the capacitor bank. This method is regarded as more econom-
ical and common for capacitor banks located downstream of the
feeder, and was therefore implemented in this paper. An addi-
tional step that was not applied in this study was to coordinate
the selected fuse link with the capacitors tank rupture curve.
The reason for not implementing this additional step was be-
cause the tank rupture curve specications for the capacitors
were not provided in [17].
D. Determination of Settings
The settings for the protective devices are determined after
the appropriate types of protective devices have been selected.
Two objectives are required regarding the choice of protective
device settings. Foremost, the device must not operate unneces-
sarily and second, it must provide adequate sensitivity to all fault
types by interrupting the fault in a timely manner. The basic rule
of thumb in ensuring maximumcoordination between a recloser
and lateral fuses is to set the recloser curves to operate without
interrupting the operation of the fuse. The sequence for the re-
closer was set for one instantaneous and two delayed trip opera-
tions (1-fast, 2-delayed) before locking out. Although the 2-fast,
2-delayed trip is widely used, the selected sequence for the re-
closer helps reduce fault duty on the transformers in the system
[9]. Also, since the recloser type is electronically controlled, an
additional time delay can easily be allocated following its in-
stantaneous trip, thereby eliminating the need for a second in-
stantaneous trip operation [9]. The following paragraphs state
each protective devices rating while keeping the coordination
objectives in mind.
1) Recloser: The reclosers minimum trip rating was chosen
to exceed the maximum nominal branch current through the re-
closer, as shown in Table II. Hence, in order for the recloser to
operate for temporary faults and provide fuse savings, the fault
current sensed by the recloser during the minimum fault at any
lateral must exceed the reclosers minimum trip rating. Table V
provides values of the branch fault current ( recloser) that will
be the sensed by the recloser when a minimum fault (1-ph fault
with impedance) is applied at each lateral (faulted node).
The nominal voltage for the selected electronic recloser type
was 14.4 kV L-N while the minimum trip rating was 100 A.
Table V shows that the recloser coordinates with the fuses at
most locations even at the farthest end of the main feeder since
( recloser) exceeds the reclosers minimum trip rating at these
locations. Based on these specications, the reclosers operating
range is from 100 to 12 000 A. The selected reclosers curve
types for the reclosers instantaneous and delay trip sequences
were 103 and 134, respectively.
In this paper, the letters A and BB have been used to
identify the electronic reclosers instantaneous and delay trip
curve types, as a means of simplicity.
Fuses on certain locations of the circuit will not be coordi-
nated with the recloser to achieve the fuse-saving concept dis-
cussed in Section II-C. For example, the fuse between nodes
888890 at lateral 5 will not be coordinated with the recloser
during a minimum fault at node 890. One reason is because the
recloser and the fuse are not operating at the same voltage level.
Other locations which recloser-fuse coordination will not be ap-
plicable are Cap-844 and Cap-848 on lateral 7. When a fault oc-
curs at the capacitors locations, it is preferable that the recloser
not operate on its instantaneous trip curve (A) prior to the com-
plete operation of the fuses protecting the capacitors [9], [10].
This condition will prevent possible overvoltages generated by
the capacitor bank in the event of a capacitor fault. Further dis-
cussions on these unique cases are presented in Section II-E.3.
2) Load-Side Fuse Sizes: The load-side fuses voltage rat-
ings as well as the nominal and symmetrical current ratings
were selected from PSS/ADEPTs protection database and cus-
tomized in DIgSILENT. The voltage ratings were matched to
the 24.9 kV L-L and 4.16 kV L-L system rating, while the nom-
inal current rating of each fuse was based on the branch cur-
rent value at each fuses location. The laterals, which had sim-
ilar nominal current ranges, were grouped, and the fuse size
that matched the current range of each lateral group was se-
lected. This approach is intended to simplify the fuse replace-
ment needs required during future scheduled maintenances [9].
The processes of determining the ratings for the transformers
fuse and the capacitors fuses were not as straightforward and
required further calculations.
3) Transformer Fuse Sizes: The transformers (XFM-1) pri-
mary fuse specications were determined based on discussions
in subsection C2. According to [15], since the rated voltage of
the transformer exceeds 600 V and the impedance is less than
7%, then the maximum-allowable fuse rating for the XFM-1s
fuse is 300% of the full-load current. XFM-1s voltage and
impedance ratings have been presented in Table I of this paper.
According to [15], secondary-side (through) faults are consid-
ered to be the most difcult to interrupt by the transformer-pri-
mary protection devices. The method for calculating the through
faults are provided in [13]. These fault currents must be inter-
rupted by the selected primary fuse. Using the rated voltage,
the calculations for the transformer faults are given in (1). The
calculated primary fault current should be sensed by the
464 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
selected transformer-primary fuse and interrupted in a timely
fashion
(1)
where
%
4) Capacitor Fuse Sizes: The calculations involved in deter-
mining the shunt capacitor fuse ratings for nodes 848 and 844
are provided in (2) and (3). The grounded shunt capacitor at
node 848 has a nominal voltage of 24.9 kV with 450-kVAR
reactive power (Q). Since the capacitor bank is wye connected,
its rated current is calculated as
(2)
According to [9], the fuse link (F9) should have a minimum
rating of 1.35 times the rated current as this factor accounts
for currents that could be generated by harmonics. Therefore,
applying the factor to the rated current generated in (2) provides
a new , which is calculated in (3) as
(3)
Similarly, the grounded shunt capacitor at the node 844 has a
nominal voltage of 24.9 kV with a total of 300-kVAR reac-
tive power (Q). Therefore, the fuse link should have minimum
current rating calculated as 9.45 A. Finally, the ratings selected
for fuses F9 and F10 should satisfy coordination requirements
with Fuse F7 at the lateral end for fuse-fuse coordination.
E. Coordination Studies
Now that the OCP devices have been selected for the system,
the coordination studies follow. This study is implemented as
a screening process for selecting the nal list of OCP devices
for the test feeder. The study primarily ensures that the optimal
protective devices selected and applied to strategic locations on
the feeder do operate correctly during a fault. In this paper, two
terms are used in describing the OCP devices to be coordinated.
These terms are the primary and secondary (backup) device. The
primary device is closer to the fault and is the rst to clear the
fault if it is permanent. The secondary device is a backup of the
primary device in case the primary device fails to clear the fault.
The coordination scheme employed TCCs of the recloser
and fuses to address the impact of temporary and permanent
faults on device coordination. Ideally, for temporary faults, the
reclosers instantaneous trip should operate completely before
the fuses minimum melt begins to operate in order to enhance
proper fuse-saving operation [9]. Recloser-fuse coordination
was implemented for temporary fault conditions. Based on [9],
the application of a factor to the reclosers instantaneous
trip is required in order to assess the recloser-fuse coordina-
tion for temporary faults. The factor is a multiplier whose
value is dependent on the reclosers sequence of operation.
The factor was applied to the recloser time values in order to
provide a safety margin between the reclosers operation and
the minimum melting time of the downstream fuses that are
coordinated with the recloser. In this paper, a factor value
of 1.25 was selected. This value corresponded to the reclosers
1-fast, 2-delayed operation selected in Section II-D. On the
other hand, for a permanent fault situation at the lateral, the
fuse must completely operate prior to the reclosers delayed
trip operation. In other words, the maximum clearing time of
the fuse must be below the reclosers delayed trip time. This
condition will ensure that the recloser functions properly as a
backup protection in case the fuse fails to interrupt the fault.
As for the locations where no fuse saving was required, a de-
rating factor concept was introduced to implement a fuse-fuse
coordination between the primary fuse and the fuses backup.
According to [9] and [19], the derating factor of 75% sufces
for effective fuse-fuse coordination. Applying the factor implies
that the maximum clearing time of the primary fuse will not
exceed 0.75 times the minimum melting time of the secondary
fuse. This measure ensures that the primary fuse operates com-
pletely before the backup fuse. Failure to implement these co-
ordination basics may result in fuse fatigue and minimize the
fuses dependability.
With respect to the overcurrent protection scheme designed
for the IEEE 34-node radial test feeder, ve possible fault cases
will be described with respect to temporary and permanent fault
conditions. Highlights of the OCP devices operation and coor-
dination (recloser-fuse and fuse-fuse) during each case will be
discussed.
1) Fault on the Main Feeder: The simplest case requiring
protection is that of a fault on the main feeder at the 24.9-kV
level. For this scenario, the recloser is the only OCP device re-
quired to operate on its instantaneous trip within two cycles to
clear the fault given that the fault is transient or temporary. If the
fault is not cleared, it becomes a permanent fault. In this case,
the reclosers delayed trip will operate twice then lockout since
no fuse is located on the main feeder.
2) Fault on Ordinary Laterals: In this case, for any fault on
laterals 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 11, the recloser operates on its instan-
taneous trip to clear the fault if the fault is temporary, thereby
enhancing fuse savings. If the fault is not interrupted and re-
mains on the lateral, then the respective fuse operates to clear
the fault and isolates the lateral from the rest of the system. An
example is presented in Fig. 3 to show the protective devices
operations during a minimum fault occurrence at node 810 on
lateral 1. In the plot, the recloser interrupts the fault and trips on
its instantaneous curve A at 0.056 s. If the fault is not cleared,
the fuse (F1) interrupts the fault and begins to melt at 0.091 s.
After 0.901 s, the recloser will trip on its delayed curve BB, to
serve as a backup in case the fault was not cleared by the fuse.
3) Fault on Laterals With Reactive Compensation: In this
case, two scenarios will be described. The rst involves a fault
on any of the nodes present on Lateral 7 excluding the capacitor
nodes. In this event, the recloser trips on its fast curve for a fuse-
saving operation. If the fault is not cleared, fuse F7 interrupts
and clears the fault, after which the lateral is isolated. The two
capacitor fuses are not involved in this sequence of events.
The second scenario describes a capacitor fault. This situation
is represented by a bolted single line-to-ground fault at either of
FUNMILAYO et al.: OVERCURRENT PROTECTION FOR THE IEEE 34-NODE RADIAL TEST FEEDER 465
Fig. 3. Recloser-fuse coordination for the minimum fault at 810.
Fig. 4. Operation of fuse F10 during a capacitor fault at node Cap-848.
the capacitor nodes 844 or 848 (Cap-844 and Cap-848). The ca-
pacitor fuse at the faulted zone will be the rst protective device
to interrupt the fault. Fuse F7 on the lateral serves as the backup
device to isolate the entire lateral before the reclosers delayed
trip operation begins. One important distinction of the second
scenario is that the recloser still instantaneously trips prior to the
operation of the backup device (F7). This fuse-saving operation
is not desired if the fault is to be promptly cleared by the backup
device. This situation provides more justication for choosing
the (1-fast, 2-delayed) recloser operation instead of the (2-fast,
2-delayed) option. Fig. 4 illustrates the capacitor fuse (F10) op-
eration at Cap-848 during a capacitor fault. As observed from
the gure, the capacitor fuse F10 clears the fault in approxi-
mately three cycles (0.044 s). The recloser will operate on its A
curve after four more cycles have elapsed in case fuse F10 does
not clear the fault. Fuse F7, the backup device for F10, will then
begin to melt at 0.380 s in order to isolate the lateral.
4) Fault on Laterals With Step-Down Transformer: This case
describes protective device coordination for faults downstream
of XFM-1. Recloser-fuse coordination was applied to the re-
closer and the XFM-1s primary fuse (fuse F5) while fuse-fuse
Fig. 5. Fuses F5 and F12 operation for a maximum fault on node 890.
coordination was applied to fuse F5 and load-side fuse, F12.
A typical example describing these coordination types occurs
during a fault on the farthest node on the lateral (node 890). In
this situation, fuse F12 operates to clear the fault and fuse F5
serves as its backup. For a fault upstream of fuse F12, for ex-
ample, on node 888, the recloser operates instantaneously for
fuse saving and serves as the backup for fuse F5 in case the fault
becomes permanent. Since fuse F5 and the recloser operate at
the same voltage level, fuse saving is possible during the min-
imum and maximum faults. Fig. 5 illustrates the fuse-fuse coor-
dination plot for F5 and F12 during a maximum fault on node
890. This protection scheme would protect the load downstream
on node 890 and the transformer during temporary or permanent
faults.
As observed from Fig. 5, fuse F5 operates at 24.9 kV while
fuse F12 operates at 4.16 kV. During a maximum fault near the
load (node 890), fuse F12 senses a fault current of 440.122 A
and operates at 0.110 s on its minimum melt and 0.260 s on
its maximum clear. If the fault is not cleared, fuse F5 (backup
device) operates at 0.913 s on its minimum melt and 1.353 on
its maximum clear while sensing a fault current of 73.533 A.
III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. Coordination Studies
From the description of the four cases in the last section, the
rst two of the four cases of the coordination studies, that is,
Section II (E1 and E2), would fully benet from the fuse-saving
operation. Table VI highlights the recloser-fuse coordination
time intervals of the protective devices during the minimum and
maximum fault, as observed from DIgSILENT.
The results were computed by comparing the reclosers in-
stantaneous time to the fuses minimum melting time. The co-
ordination time interval was calculated based on the difference
in the operating times of both devices. As observed from the
time interval results in the table, the coordination time interval
between the recloser and fuses exceeds 1 cycle or more during
the maximum faults (worst case) with a few exceptions. These
exceptions are fuses 9 and 10.
466 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
TABLE VI
RECLOSER-FUSE COORDINATION TIME INTERVALS FROM DIGSILENT
TABLE VII
FUSE-FUSE COORDINATION TIME INTERVALS FROM DIGSILENT
The negative time interval values observed for fuses 9 and
10 indicate that each fuse operated on its maximum clear curve
prior to the recloser instantaneous trip operation. In these excep-
tions, applying a factor to the recloser may seem redundant
and no recloser-fuse coordination for fuse saving is required.
Fuse F5 coordinates with the recloser during a transformer
fault described in Section II (C2 and D3). Results from interpo-
lating the transformer fault current show that the recloser will
operate at 0.161 s on its instantaneous curve to coordinate with
fuse F5. Table VII presents the result for the fuse-fuse coordi-
nation.
Observations from Table VII show that the ratio of the pri-
mary fuses maximum clearing time to the secondary fuses
minimummelt time is well belowthe derating factor limit (0.75)
required for proper fuse-fuse coordination during a minimum
fault. Table VIII illustrates the nal list of selected overcurrent
protective device types for the test feeder. The table provides
the devices ratings and the manufacturer names.
TABLE VIII
OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICES LIST FOR THE TEST FEEDER
B. Selected OCP Devices Studies
All 12 fuses dened in Table VIII were standard fuse types.
These selected fuses and the recloser were available in the PSS/
ADEPT protection database.
As observed from Table VIII, six of the seven KEARNEY
manufactured fuses (rated at 4 A) were selected to protect the
lightly loaded laterals. The six fuses include fuses 1, 3,4,6,8, and
11; these fuses provided the appropriate level of sensitivity for
the protected laterals. Furthermore, given that the loads in the
system were assumed as static loads, the effect of future load
changes on the ratings of the selected OCP devices were as-
sessed by considering long-term load growth. The typical long-
term (110 years) load growth rate assumed for OCP design
ranges between (13)% [19], [25]. References [4] and [19] dis-
cussed the calculation of load growth using parameters, such
as the load growth rate (g%), the initial and nal value of the
load ( and ), and the number of years considered ( th
year). This calculation is given in (4) and the growth rate and
the number of years were varied in order to address the impact
of increasing load changes on the selected OCP devices ratings
provided in Table VIII
(4)
From (4), the selected OCP devices used in the work and re-
ported in this paper were capable of accommodating an annual
load growth rate of 1.25% over a ve-year period. This state-
ment implies that the ultimate load currents may be increased
by a factor of 1.06 without causing any violations to the settings
of the selected OCP devices provided for the system.
The selected fuses presented in the table provided the max-
imumcoordination range with the recloser when the systemwas
faulted. Moreover, the maximum symmetrical current rating of
all OCP devices shown in the table exceeded the
maximum fault present on the system. For this reason, the OCP
devices can be said to accommodate higher fault current levels
if they occur within the system.
IV. CONCLUSION
A conventional OCP and coordination scheme has been
successfully implemented on the IEEE 34-node radial test
feeder using DIgSILENT PowerFactory 13.1. DIgSILENT has
the functionality of modeling the unbalanced characteristic
FUNMILAYO et al.: OVERCURRENT PROTECTION FOR THE IEEE 34-NODE RADIAL TEST FEEDER 467
TABLE IX
SPOT LOADS
TABLE X
DISTRIBUTED LOADS
of distribution systems. Load-ow and short-circuit studies
were conducted on the same circuit by modeling the substation
using an ideal voltage source and substation transformer with
xed taps to produce a 1.05-p.u. prole at the transformers
secondary. This model is more versatile for OCP studies which
require load-ow and short-circuit results. The load-ow re-
sults have been validated using the reference from the IEEE
Distribution System Analysis Subcommittees publication in
[17]. The short-circuit and coordination studies were performed
by choosing a 20- fault impedance value for the minimum
faults. This choice does not imply the minimum fault current
possible, it only indicates the minimum fault that the OCP
devices are set to trip based on the protection philosophy. The
nal list of selected OCP devices, following the short circuit
and coordination studies, provided the most suitable OCP
device types at their respective locations on the test feeder.
Results from the coordination studies show adequate re-
closer-fuse coordination at all locations operating at the same
voltage level on the feeder. Two solutions were proposed to
address the 2 three-phase laterals with unique characteristics.
An expulsion fuse F5 selected for lateral 5 was chosen to
provide recloser-fuse coordination with the reclosers A curve
and fuse-fuse coordination with fuse F12 , which is located
downstreamof the lateral. Therefore, fuse F5 provided adequate
overcurrent protection for the step-down transformer and load
on lateral 5 during temporary or permanent (maximum and
minimum) fault events on the lateral. For lateral 7, the capacitor
fuses were selected to operate completely prior to the reclosers
instantaneous trip operation in the event of a capacitor fault.
Thus, fuse-fuse coordination was implemented between the
capacitor fuses (F9 and F10) and F7 while recloser-fuse co-
ordination was implemented between F7 and the reclosers
instantaneous trip curve.
Finally, the overcurrent protective devices list presented in
this paper, along with the coordination studies results, may serve
as reference data to extend the use of the IEEE 34-node ra-
dial test feeder as a benchmark circuit. The results will enable
easy comparison and assessment of future overcurrent protec-
tion studies regarding radial distribution systems with or without
additions such as DG.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank F. J. Verdeja Perez, J. Men-
doza, S. Duttagupta, M. Marotti, K. Manseld, T. Djokic, and
H. E. Leon for their contributions, along with the assistance of
Prof. W. H. Kersting.
REFERENCES
[1] W. H. Kersting, Radial distribution test feeders, in Proc. IEEE Power
Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, Columbus, OH, 2001, vol. 2, pp. 908912.
[2] J. C. Gomez and M. M. Morcos, Coordination of voltage sag and over-
current protection in DGsystems, IEEETrans. Power Del., vol. 20, no.
1, pp. 214218, Jan. 2005.
[3] R. C. Dugan and D. T. Rizy, Electric distribution protection prob-
lems associated with the interconnection of small, dispersed genera-
tion devices, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-103, no. 6, pp.
11211125, Jun. 1984.
[4] B. Fardanesh and E. Richards, Distribution system protection with
decentralized generation introduced into the system, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. IA-20, no. 1, pp. 122130, Jan. 1984.
[5] Power System Relaying Committee Working Group, Intertie
protection of consumer-owned sources of generation3 MVA
or less. 1990. [Online]. Available: www.osti.gov/energycita-
tions/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6719106-13k
[6] P. P. Barker and R. W. D. Mello, Determining the impact of dis-
tributed generation on power systems: Part 1Radial distribution sys-
tems, in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, 2000, pp.
16451656.
[7] A. Girgis and S. Brahma, Effect of distributed generation on protective
device coordination in distribution system, in Power Eng. Large Eng.
Syst., Halifax, NS, Canada, 2001, pp. 115119.
[8] V. V. Thong, E. Vandenbrande, J. Soens, D. V. Dommelen, J. Driesen,
and R. Belmans, Inuences of large penetration of distributed genera-
tion on N-1 safety operation, Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc., p. 5, 2004.
[9] Cooper Power Systems, Electrical distribution-system protection,
2005.
[10] S. R. Mendis, M. T. Bishop, J. C. McCall, and W. M. Hurst, Capacitor
overcurrent protection for industrial distribution systems, IEEE Ind.
Appl. Mag., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 2027, May/Jun. 1996.
[11] S&C Electric Company, Data Bull. 350-130, Selection Guide
for the Protection of Overhead Distribution Capacitor Banks.
Aug. 1992. [Online]. Available: http://www.sandc.com/edocs_pdfs/
EDOC_037204.pdf
[12] IEEE Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of In-
dustrial and Commercial Power Systems, IEEE Standard 399-1997,
Aug. 1998.
[13] J. Burke, Hard to nd information about distribution systems, ABB
Inc. Consulting, Raleigh, NC, 2002. [Online]. Available: library.abb.
com/.../VerityDisplay/4EDF68B14B79751F85256C550053D6B6/
$File/Hard-to%20Find%2019c.pdf
[14] IEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Power Distribution for In-
dustrial Plants, IEEE Standard 141-1993, Dec. 1993.
[15] IEEE Guide for Protective Relay Applications to Power Transformers,
IEEE Standard C37.91-2000, Mar. 2000.
468 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
[16] P. J. Meyer, Primary-side transformer protection. S&C Electric Com-
pany, Feb. 2005. [Online]. Available: www.sand.com/edocs_pdfs/
EDOC_27579.pdf
[17] W. H. Kersting, R. C. Dugan, and S. Carneiro, Jr., Jan. 2001, Radial
Test Feeders-IEEE Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee. [On-
line]. Available: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders.
html
[18] F. Soudi and K. Tomsovic, Optimal trade-offs in distribution protec-
tion design, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 292296, Apr.
2001.
[19] T. Gonen, Electric Power Distribution System Engineering. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1986.
[20] K. Tomsovic and F. Soudi, Optimized distribution protection using
binary programming, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 13, no. 1, pp.
218222, Jan. 1998.
[21] J. W. Goodfellow, Understanding how trees cause interruptions,
an update of ten years of high voltage research, 2006. [On-
line]. Available: http://www.utilityarborist.org/images/Presenta-
tions/ISA%202006%20Goodfellow.pdf
[22] J. Dagenhart, The 40-ohm ground-fault phenomenon, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3032, Jan/Feb. 2000.
[23] B. D. Metz-Noblat, F. Dumas, and C. Poulain, Calculation of short-
circuit current, 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.schneider-elec-
tric.com/documents/technical-publications/en/shared/electrical-engi-
neering/electrical-know-how/low-voltage-minus-1kv/ect158.pdf
[24] J. F. Witte, S. R. Mendis, M. T. Bishop, and J. A. Kischefsky,
Computer-aided recloser applications for distribution systems, IEEE
Comput. Appl. Power, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 2732, Jul. 1992.
[25] H. M. Al-Hamadi and S. A. Soliman, Long-term/mid-term
electric load forecasting based on short-term correlation and
annual growth. 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedi-
rect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V30-4FWK6DN-
2&_user=952835&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&
view=c&_acct=C000049198&_version=1&_urlVer-
sion=0&_userid=952835&md5=44169e23ee88400a06d6ff-
bdfc414fb0
Hamed B. Funmilayo (S04) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering
from Kansas State University, Manhattan, in 2005.
Currently, he is a Graduate Research Assistant at Texas A&M Universitys
Power System Automation Lab. His research includes distributed generation
with an emphasis on overcurrent protection.
Mr. Funmilayo is a member of Eta Kappa Nu and the Power Engineering
Society.
James A. Silva (S06) received the B.S.E.E. and M.S.E.E. degrees in electrical
engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, in
2005, and is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer en-
gineering at Texas A&M University, College Station.
For the 20052006 academic year, he was a Teaching Assistant with the
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN. His research topics have included power system protection,
distributed generation (with an emphasis on wind power), and microgrids.
Karen L. Butler-Purry (SM01) received the B.S. degree (Hons.) in electrical
engineering from Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA, in 1985, the M.S. de-
gree from the University of Texas, Austin, in 1987, and the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from Howard University, Washington, DC, in 1994.
She joined Texas A&M University, College Station, in 1994, where she is
currently Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Her research interests are in the areas of distribution automation and intelligent
systems for power quality, equipment deterioration, and fault diagnosis.
Dr. Butler-Purry is a Registered Professional Engineer in the States of
Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi. She is a member of the Power Engineering
Society, the American Society for Engineering Education, and the Louisiana
Engineering Society. She received the National Science Foundation Faculty
Career Award in 1995 and the Ofce of Naval Research Young Investigator
Award in 1999.