525

1

Abstract-- This paper focus on how distributed generation
(DG) may impact on the fault detection and location in medium
voltage (MV) distribution networks. Typical possible problems
are protection blinding and sympathetic tripping. The purpose of
the work is to gain an understanding of when problems are most
likely to occur, and of possibilities for fault location in networks
with distributed generation.
The paper presents simulations (PSCAD/EMTDC) done on a
MV radial distribution network with a DG-unit (synchronous
generator). An analytical approach is used to explain simulation
results.

Distributed generation, medium voltage network, fault
localization, blinding.

I. INTRODUCTION
ORWAY has large potentials for small hydro power, and
many small plants are already in operation. The
Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, NVE,
has mapped at total potential of 25 TWh for plants smaller
than 10 MW. New production capacity of totally 5 TWh is
estimated to be developed during the next 10 years [1]. Most
of the small hydro power plants are connected to MV
distribution networks.
The operation of Norwegian distribution networks is based
on a radial network structure, with unidirectional power flow.
Non-directional overcurrent relays with constant-current
characteristics are normally used for short circuit protection.
Whether traditional and inexpensive overcurrent protection
can be used in networks with DG depend on the influence the
DG has on fault situations. The impact of distributed
generation on protection of distribution networks has been
described in many papers [2], [3]. Two frequently mentioned
problems when using traditional non-directional protection

Manuscript received April 15, 2007.
This work is financed by the Norwegian Research Council, ABB, several
Norwegian utility companies and some other industry companies.
J. I. Marvik is with the Department of Electric Power Engineering, NTNU,
Trondheim, Norway (e-mail: Jorun.Marvik@elkraft.ntnu.no).
A. Petterteig is with SINTEF Energy Research, Trondheim, Norway (e-
mail: Astrid.Petterteig@sintef.no).
H. K. Hoidalen is with the Department of Electric Power Engineering,
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
(e-mail: Hans.Kristian.Hoidalen@elkraft.ntnu.no).
based on substation measurement of rms current are blinding
and sympathetic tripping. In networks with DG, protection
coordination is complicated, especially since there is a conflict
between settings required to avoid blinding and settings
required to avoid sympathetic tripping [4].
The influence DG has on fault detection and fault clearing,
as well as an increased focus on minimizing the outage time
and the number of load and generation customers affected by
each fault, introduces need for changes in fault location
methods and equipment [5]. Directional relays or fault
indicators may be used to avoid sympathetic tripping, and
more advanced methods based on fault transients, adaptive
protection schemes or use of relay agents are proposed [2],
[5]-[9] for more precise fault localization. These fault location
methods utilize collection and communication of information
about the actual system state, as well as computational
intelligence.
This paper shows how DG influence on the short circuit
protection of a radial feeder, and looks into possibilities of
utilizing distance protection for automated fault location in a
distribution network with DG.
II. SIMULATION MODEL
A MV distribution network with a DG-unit connected to a
radial feeder is modeled in PSCAD/EMTDC, see Fig. 1. The
DG-unit is a small hydro power plant with a synchronous
generator. The generator is assumed to have brushless
excitation, and the power factor is controlled to be 1 in steady-
state. In all simulations the generators produce rated power.
Two different generators are modeled; with rated power of 3
and 6 MW and corresponding typical reactance data. The
generator with the largest rated power has the lowest
reactance.
A static model is used for representing loads. Active power
is represented as constant current and reactive power as
constant impedance [10]. The loads are equally dispersed at 6
load taps, with 5 km between each. Maximum load for this
feeder is 6 MVA. Low load is assumed to be 25 % of high
load. The loads have a power factor of 0.9.
The cross-section area of the line decreases from the
substation towards the end of the feeder.

Analysis of Fault Detection and Location in
Medium Voltage Radial Networks with
Distributed Generation
J. I. Marvik, A. Petterteig and H. K. Hoidalen
N
1191 978-1-4244-2190-9/07/$25.00 2007 IEEE PowerTech 2007
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tabriz University. Downloaded on August 04,2010 at 04:53:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
525

2
DG-unit
Loads 1 MVA
cos=0,9
Is
I
D
G
Ifault 66/22
2
2
/
6
.
6
3 4 5 6
cos=1
25 MVA
5 km
70mm
2
5 km
50mm
2
5 km
50mm
2
5 km
25mm
2
5 km
25mm
2
5 km
16mm
2
Main
Grid
Sk=990 MVA
5 km
70mm
2
2 1
Adjacent
feeder
Us
U0
UDG

Fig. 1. Simulation model of a radial feeder in a 22 kV distribution network

III. BLINDING OF FEEDER OVERCURRENT PROTECTION
Radial distribution lines are commonly protected by
overcurrent relays. An overcurrent relay has to be set to
pickup for a current larger than the maximum load current,
and smaller than the smallest possible short circuit current.
The following margins for setting of pickup current for
overcurrent relays are given in Faanes [11] :
1 5 0 8
load ,max relay, pickup short circuit ,min
, I I , I

s s (1)

Blinding occurs when, for a short circuit on the line, the
current measured in the substation is smaller than the pickup
current of the relay. This can happen when there is DG
connected to the line.
A. Analytical analysis
An analytical analysis on blinding of the line protection in
the substation can be done based on the simplified equivalent
scheme shown in Fig. 2. The line is represented by lumped
impedance parameters (Z
line1
and Z
line2
), taking the not-
constant cross section area of the feeder into account. Z
grid
is
the impedance of the main network and the short circuit
reactance of the substation transformer. Z
DG
includes the
transient reactance of the generator and the transformer short
circuit reactance. I
DG
is the current fed from the DG. I
s
and U
s

are substation current and voltage. No loads are includes in
the model.
Z
DG
Z
line1
Z
line2
U
fault
DG
Main
grid
I
fault
Z
grid
I
s
I
DG
U
s
U
0
U
DG

Fig. 2. Simplified representation of the network, used for analytical analysis

The fault studied here is a three phase short circuit. The
fault current can be expressed as a function of the impedance
seen from the fault location, Z
th
, and the pre-fault voltage at
the fault location U
fault
[11], [12]. The Thevenin impedance
seen from the fault location is:
( )
( )
1
2
1
DG grid line fault
th line fault
th DG grid line
Z Z Z U
Z Z I
Z Z Z Z
+
= + . =
+ +
(2)
The fault current consists of two components; I
DG
, and I
s
.
The relationship between the sizes of the two currents depends
on the relationship between the impedances Z
DG
and
Z
grid
+Z
line1
, and the difference between main grid voltage U
0

and generator internal voltage U
DG
. Eq. (3) gives an
expression for the substation current:
( )
( )
0 1
0
1
2 1
1 2
1
grid line s DG DG DG DG fault s
DG
s
grid line DG
fault
line grid line
grid line line
DG
U Z Z I U Z I I I I
U U
I
Z Z Z
U
Z Z Z
Z Z Z
Z
+ = . =

=
+ +
+
+
+ + +
(3)
The first term equals the substation current before fault. U
0
-
U
DG
is assumed to be constant before and after fault inception,
and equal to the value that corresponds to nominal generation
in the DG. For a fault at the end of the radial, the total
impedance of the line and the main grid is constant,
independently of where the DG is connected:
1 2 grid line line total
Z Z Z Z + + = (4)
By inserting (4) into (3), so that Z
line2
is eliminated, (3) can
be plotted as a function of Z
line1
. This corresponds to moving
the connection point of the DG unit. Fig. 3 shows the current
in the substation as a function of the connection point of the
DG for the two DG-sizes 3 MW and 6 MW, both at nominal
generation. As a simplification, U
fault
is assumed to be 1 pu in
both cases.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
2.5
3
3.5
Distance from substation to DG-unit [km]
I
s

[
p
u
]
No DG
3MW DG
6MW DG

Fig. 3. The substation fault current (Is), from (3), when the connection point of
the DG-unit is varied. Three-phase short circuit at the end of the feeder.
The plot shows that the reduction in the short circuit current
is largest when the DG is connected at the middle of the
feeder. The reduction is smallest when the DG is connected at
the end of the feeder. Without DG the total current is fed via
the substation and is seen by the feeder protection overcurrent
relay. The probability of blinding increases with increased
generation from the DG.
The impedance Z
DG
decreases with increasing DG-capacity.
In addition, generators with the same generation capacity can
1192
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tabriz University. Downloaded on August 04,2010 at 04:53:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
525

3
have different short circuit capacity due to differences in
reactance parameters. According to Kundur [10] standard d-
axis transient reactance values for hydraulic generators are
0.2-0.5 p.u. A smaller transient reactance means larger short
circuit capacity, or larger fault current contribution from the
DG. This gives increased blinding probability.
Fig. 4 shows that the probability of blinding is increased
for a longer feeder. For the calculations on the 45 km feeder,
each line section is prolonged to 7.5 km, while other data are
the same as for the 30 km feeder. The margin between short
circuit and load current decreases as the feeder length
increases. For very long lines it might not be possible to use
overcurrent protection even without DG. Connecting DG to
the network worsens this problem.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
2
2.5
3
3.5
Distance from substation to DG-unit [km]
I
s

[
p
u
]
30 km,no DG
30 km,3 MW DG
45 km,no DG
45 km,3 MW DG

Fig. 4. The substation fault current (Is) for two different line lengths, when the
connection point of the DG-unit is varied. Three-phase short circuit at the end
of the feeder.
B. Short circuit simulation
For comparison, simulation results of fault current
measured in the substation when the connection point of the
DG is varied is shown in Fig. 5, together with the analytically
calculated curve. The fault is a three-phase short circuit at the
feeder end, and the DG production is 3 MW.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
Distance from substation to DG-unit [km]
I
s

[
p
u
]
simulated - high load
simulated - low load
simulated - no load
analytical - no load
Fig. 5. Comparison between simulated and analytically calculated substation
fault current (Is).

The simulated curves in Fig. 5 show the same tendency as
the analytically calculated. They also show that it is not
unreasonable to study a model without loads, since the short
circuit current is smallest in this case.
In the simulated case, the voltage U
fault
depends on load
level, and on the generation level and connection point of the
DG. In the no load case, U
fault
becomes higher than 1 pu due
to the DG-production. If a value higher than 1 pu is used in
the calculation, the analytical curve is lifted up, giving a result
closer to the simulated curve.
The smallest possible short circuit current occurs when
there is a two-phase short circuit at the end of the feeder. Fig.
6 and Fig. 7 show substation fault currents for this fault, for
the high load and low load case. The curves are found by
simulation, and the DG is connected at feeder mid-point.
7.49 7.5 7.51 7.52 7.53 7.54 7.55 7.56 7.57
0
1
2
3
4
Time [s]
I
s

[
p
u
]
,

a
t

h
i
g
h

l
o
a
d
No DG
3 MW DG
6 MW DG

Fig. 6. Simulated substation fault current (Is) with two-phase short circuit at
feeder end, at high load
7.49 7.5 7.51 7.52 7.53 7.54 7.55 7.56 7.57
0
1
2
3
4
Time [s]
I
s

[
p
u
]
,

a
t

l
o
w

l
o
a
d
No DG
3 MW DG
6 MW DG

Fig. 7. Simulated substation fault current (Is) with two-phase short circuit at
feeder end, at low load

For the case presented, using (1), the chosen pickup current
is typically 2 pu when there is no DG connected. The
maximum load current is 1 pu (equal to high load). Minimum
short circuit current will occur during low load, and is 3.3 pu,
according to Fig. 7.
If I
relay,pickup
is set to e.g. 2.0, the relay will not trip in the
case with 6 MW DG in Fig. 7. There is still some margin
between minimum short circuit current (~1.8 pu) and
maximum load current, so the pickup-current could be
adjusted down to e.g. 1.5 pu. However, in this case the margin
would be slightly smaller than that given in (1).
With higher generation than 6 MW, the line voltage in the
connection point could increase above acceptable limits (
10% of nominal voltage) [13] during low load. With e.g. a
generation of 8 MW from the DG, the voltage became 1.12
pu. For the presented case, it seems possible to avoid blinding
for most realistic DG-capacities.

IV. SHORT CIRCUIT ON ADJACENT FEEDER
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show simulated substation current on the
feeder with DG, when there is a three phase short circuit at an
adjacent feeder. The DG-unit is connected near the substation,
1193
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tabriz University. Downloaded on August 04,2010 at 04:53:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
525

4
after line section 1. This represents the worst case as regards
false tripping.
7.49 7.5 7.51 7.52 7.53 7.54 7.55 7.56 7.57
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Time [s]
I
s

[
p
u
]
,

h
i
g
h

l
o
a
d
6 MW DG
3 MW DG
no DG

Fig. 8. Simulated substation current (Is) with three-phase short circuit at an
adjacent feeder. High-load case.

7.49 7.5 7.51 7.52 7.53 7.54 7.55 7.56 7.57
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Time [s]
I
s

[
p
u
]
,

l
o
w

l
o
a
d
6 MW DG
3 MW DG
no DG

Fig. 9. Simulated substation current (Is) with three-phase short circuit at an
adjacent feeder. Low-load case.
The DG-unit feeds fault current to the adjacent feeder, and
with a DG-production of 6 MW this current is large enough to
trip the relay. This is not desirable, and can be prevented by
installing a directional overcurrent relay at the feeder with
DG.
It is worth to notice that if the pickup of the overcurrent
relay is adjusted down in order to prevent blinding, the
probability for unwanted disconnection due to short circuit at
an adjacent feeder will increase.

V. DISTANCE PROTECTION AND FAULT LOCATION
Distance protection is the most common line protection at
transmission level, and in meshed networks. They respond to
the impedance between the relay location and the fault
location. For e.g a fault between phases a and b, the
impedance can be obtained from the voltages and currents in
phases a and b:
a b
a b
a b
U U
Z
I I

(5)
The impedance can be obtained correspondingly, for the other
phase-to-phase faults. For a three-phase fault, voltage and
current from any pair of phases can be used [14]:
a b b c c a
a b c
a b b c c a
U U U U U U
Z
I I I I I I


= = =

(6)
For fault location, the reactance part of the measured
impedance is normally used for determining the distance to a
fault [15]. In this way, the impact from a possible fault
resistance is reduced.
Distribution networks differ from transmission networks by
some important characteristics:
- Due to the not constant cross-section area of
distribution networks, there is no linear
relationship between measured impedance and
distance to the fault location.
- The line losses are larger, so the short circuit angle
is smaller. This means that the difference between
load angle and short circuit angle also is smaller
for distribution lines.
- Load taps are found at irregular intervals.
- Distribution networks have tree-structure, so that
one measured impedance might correspond to
several possible fault locations. This is not
examined in the current paper, but can be handled
e.g. by using fault indicators in the branching
points.
The accuracy of the calculated distance to the fault is
influenced by several quantities. In the following sections the
impact of intermediate load taps and of DG connected to the
network is examined. In addition there might be errors due to
inaccuracies in measurements and line parameters, but that is
not further discussed here.

A. Impact of load current on calculated distance to fault
The current in the primary substation contains a load
current component. This was seen in the short circuit
simulations in the previous section on blinding. The
equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 10 can be used to study the
impact from an intermediate load.
U
s,a
I
s,a
I
s,b
Z
line2
Z
line1
Z
line1
Z
load
Z
load
Z
load
Z
line2
Z
line2
Z
line1
I
s,c
U
s,b
U
s,c
U
1,a
U
1,b
U
1,c

Fig. 10. Equivalent circuit for phase-to-phase fault in network with one load

From the equivalent circuit, the following expression for
the impedance measured by the relay can be found:
, , 2
1
, , 2
1 2
3
3
s a s b load line
a b line
s a s b load line
load
line line
U U Z Z
Z Z
i i Z Z
Z
Z Z

= = +
+
| |
= +
|
\ .
&
(7)
The second term in (7) becomes a bit less than Z
line2
, so the
effect of intermediate loads is that faults appear to be closer to
the substation than they actually are. The trend will be the
1194
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tabriz University. Downloaded on August 04,2010 at 04:53:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
525

5
same with more loads along the feeder.
Fig. 11 shows that the case with high load, and a profile
where most of the load (5 MVA) is connected close to the
substation and a small portion (1 MVA) connected at the end
of the feeder, gives the largest distance-error. During a short
circuit, the voltage is highest close to the substation. Since the
loads are voltage-dependent, the total load current will be
larger than in the case with evenly distributed loads, even
though the total load were equal prior to the fault. Generally,
the largest error in fault distance measurement appears when a
large portion of the load is connected close to the substation.
5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
Distance from substation to fault location [km]
(
X
-
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

-

r
e
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
)

/
r
e
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
low load, profile:
high load, profile: 1-1-1-1-1-1
high load, profile: 5-0-0-0-0-1

Fig. 11. Relative error in calculated distance to fault location for two high load
and one low load case. Distance is calculated from measured reactance.

Although the load is mostly active power, it has an impact
on the measured reactance. This is due to the parallel in the
second term of (7). In addition, the total resistance of the
feeder is higher than the total reactance. A deviation in the
reactance will influence relatively more on the accuracy of the
calculated distance than a deviation in the resistance.
B. Load compensation
For a radial line with unidirectional power flow, the load
current during a fault can be estimated from the voltage and
current measured in the substation. In the simple approach
described here, the load is assumed to be dispersed equally at
N load taps. The loads are modeled as constant impedances,
calculated from the active and reactive power flow in the
substation before fault inception:
2
,. -
, - .
=

s pre fault
load
s pre fault
U
Z
S N
(8)
The line sections are represented by series impedance only.
The number of load taps, N, is 6.

Fig. 12. Distribution of equal load equivalents along the feeder

With reference to Fig. 12, the voltages in the load tap points
and the load currents are calculated iteratively, using (9).
,
,

=
=
m k line k m k m
m
load m
load
U U Z I
U
I
Z
(9)
Fig. 13 shows that the load compensation works well for
the two cases where the loads are evenly distributed, since this
is the distribution that is assumed when calculating the load
current during the fault. But, also for the case where the load
distribution is 5-0-0-0-0-1 the distance error is reduced with
load compensation, from ~17 % to ~9 % for a fault at the end
of the feeder.
However, the approach for load compensation presented
here, will not work with DG in the network, since it is based
on an assumption of unidirectional power flow.
5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
Distance from substation to fault location [km]
(
X
-
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

-

r
e
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
)

/
r
e
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
low load, profile:
high load, profile:1-1-1-1-1-1
high load, profile:5-0-0-0-0-1

Fig. 13. Relative error in calculated distance to fault location with
compensation of load current. Distance is calculated from measured reactance.
C. Impact of in-feed current from DG
Fig. 14 shows simulation results for a low load case with a
3 MW DG-unit connected at the middle of the radial, 15 km
from the substation. The fault location is varied along the
feeder.
The DG has no impact on the fault distance for fault
locations closer to the substation than the DG connection
point. For faults beyond the DG connection point, the effect of
the DG is that the calculated distance to the fault is larger than
the real distance. The impact of the DG on the distance
calculation is opposite of that from the load, so that they to
some extent balance each other. Thus the largest error in the
distance calculation appears in a low load situation.
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Distance from substation to fault location [km]
(
X
-
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

-

r
e
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
)

/
r
e
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
6 MW DG
3 MW DG
no DG

Fig. 14. Relative error in calculated distance to fault location, with DG-unit at
the mid-point of the feeder. Distance is calculated from measured reactance.
Low load case.

Fig. 15 shows the error in calculated distance to the fault as
the connection point of the DG-unit is varied. The fault is at
-----
-----
1195
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tabriz University. Downloaded on August 04,2010 at 04:53:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
525

6
the end of the line (worst case). The distance error is largest
when the DG-unit is connected close to the substation.
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Distance from substation to DG connection point [km]
(
X
-
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

-

r
e
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
)

/
r
e
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
6MW, low load
6 MW, high load
3MW, low load

Fig. 15. Relative error in calculated distance to fault location with the fault at
the end of the feeder, as a function of DG-location. Distance is calculated
from measured reactance.
VI. CONCLUSION
Since distribution networks have largely varying extent and
design, it is hard to draw general conclusions on DG-impact
on feeder protection.
DG reduces the margin between minimum short circuit
current and maximum load current. For the feeder studied
here, blinding of the overcurrent protection seems possible to
avoid for most realistic DG generation-levels.
The probability of protection blinding is largest in weak
networks, and in networks with large extent. Generators that
are connected near the feeder mid-point contribute most to the
reduction of substation short circuit current.
Unwanted disconnection of a feeder with DG due to a fault
at an adjacent feeder, can occur if the feeder protection is not
directional.
Distance protection can be used to obtain the distance to a
fault from the measured fault reactance. Distribution networks
have some characteristics that make fault location with
distance protection more difficult than the conventional
application in transmission networks. Load taps dispersed
along the feeder makes the distance protection see a shorter
fault distance than the real one. DG has the opposite effect,
and makes the fault appear to be farther away than it is. Both
load and DG must be taken into account, when using distance
protection for automatic fault location in distribution networks
with DG.
REFERENCES
[1] Jensen, T. (red.), NVE 2004. Calculation of potential for small hydro
power stations in Norway (In Norwegian). www.nve.no
[2] Li, H. Y., Crossley, P. A., Jenkins, N., 2002. Transient Directional
Protection for Distribution Feeders with Embedded Generations, 14th
Power Systems Computation Conference, June 24-28 2002, Sevilla,
Spain, 6 pages
[3] Kauhaniemi, K., Kumpulainen, L., 2005. Impact of distributed
generation on the protection of distribution networks, Electric Energy
T&D Magazine. Vol. 8 (2004) Nr: 5, pp. 161 163
[4] Mki, K., Repo, S., Jrventausta, P., 2006. Protection requirement graph
for interconnection of distributed generation on distribution level. IJGEI
- journal 2006, 9 pages
[5] Andrieu, Raison, Penkov, Fontela, Bacha, Hadjsaid, 2004. Fault
detection and diagnostics in high-DG distribution systems, CRISP report
D.1.4, 38 pages
[6] Brahma, S.M.; Girgis, A. A., 2004. Development of adaptive protection
scheme for distribution systems with high penetration of distributed
generation, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.: 19, Iss.: 1, Jan.
2004, Pages: 56 63
[7] Geidl, M., 2005. Protection of Power Systems with Distributed.
Generation: State of the Art. . Power Systems Laboratory. Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, 20th July 2005, 35 pages
[8] Perera, N., Rajapakse, A.D., Gole, A.M., 2006, Wavelet-based relay
agent for isolating faulty sections in distribution grids with distributed
generators, The 8th IEE International Conference on AC and DC Power
Transmission, 28-31 March 2006, Pages:162-166
[9] Zeng X., Li, K.K., Chan, W.L., Su S., 2004. Multi-agents based
protection for distributed generation systems, Proceedings of IEEE
International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring
and Power Technologies, Vol. 1, 5-8 April 2004, Pages: 393 397
[10] Kundur P. 1994. Power System Stability and Control. McGraw-Hill,
New York, US pp. 153, 271-4
[11] Faanes H., Olsen, K. 2005. Compendium in course TET4115 Elektric
Power Systems, Department of electric power engineering, NTNU,
Trondheim, Norway 2005 (In Norwegian).
[12] Mki K., Repo S., Jrventausta P. 2005. Protection Coordination to meet
the Requirements of Blinding Problems caused by Distributed
Generation. WSEAS Transactions on Circuits and Systems, 2005, vol.4,
no.7, p. 674-8.
[13] OED 2007. FOR 2004-11-30 nr 1557: Regulations on Power Quality (In
Norwegian). http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/ldles?doc=/sf/sf/sf-
20041130-1557.html.
[14] Horowitz, S. H., Phadke, A. G. 1995. Power System Relaying. Second
Edition. Research Studies Press Ltd. Taunton, Somerset, England 1995.
pp. 106-134.
[15] Ziegler G. 2006. Numerical Distance Protection, Principles and
Applications. Second Edition. Publicis Corporate Publishing, Erlangen,
Germany



Jorun Marvik received the M.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from
the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in 2004. She is now
PhD-student at the same institution.

Astrid Petterteig received the M.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from
the Norwegian Institute of Technology in 1987, and the Ph.D. degree in 1992.
She is presently working at SINTEF Energy Research as a research scientist.

Hans Kr. Hidalen received his MSc and PhD from the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology in 1990 and 1998 respectively. He is
now a professor at the same institution with a special interest of electrical
stress calculations and modeling.
1196
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tabriz University. Downloaded on August 04,2010 at 04:53:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.