Fault Location Identification in Smart Distribution Networks With Distributed Generation
This document proposes a fault location identification method for distribution networks with distributed generation using measurements from smart grid devices. It begins with an overview of existing fault locating techniques and their limitations for distribution networks. It then discusses how smart grid technologies like AMI, reclosers, and intelligent electronic devices can provide necessary fault measurements. Finally, it introduces using a MATLAB-based state estimation technique along with the OpenDSS tool to validate the method on an IEEE 37 node test feeder modified to include distributed generators.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
45 views7 pages
Fault Location Identification in Smart Distribution Networks With Distributed Generation
This document proposes a fault location identification method for distribution networks with distributed generation using measurements from smart grid devices. It begins with an overview of existing fault locating techniques and their limitations for distribution networks. It then discusses how smart grid technologies like AMI, reclosers, and intelligent electronic devices can provide necessary fault measurements. Finally, it introduces using a MATLAB-based state estimation technique along with the OpenDSS tool to validate the method on an IEEE 37 node test feeder modified to include distributed generators.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7
Fault Location Identification in Smart Distribution
Networks with Distributed Generation
Jose Cordova M. Omar Faruque Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Center for Advanced Power Systems (CAPS) Center for Advanced Power Systems (CAPS) Florida State University (FSU), Tallahassee, FL, USA. Florida State University (FSU), Tallahassee, FL, USA. [email protected][email protected]
Abstract—In this paper, based on the measurements available
from the smart grid devices such as Advanced Metering smart equipment, use of these techniques for exact location Infrastructure (AMI), Reclosers, Distributed Generators (DG) identification became close to reality. and other IEDs, a fault location identification method is proposed that can accurately identify the fault location. The II. STATE-OF-THE-ART FAULT LOCATING TECHNIQUES algorithm is suitable for distribution networks with DG and A. Current Fault Locating Methods smart measurement infrastructure that can transmit event- driven data such as pre and post-fault voltages or currents of Significant research [3-5] has been done to identify the scarce number of meters. A MATLAB-based state estimation fault location in transmission systems, where the system is (SE) technique is applied to identify the fault location, and the balanced and employs SCADA data to monitor it. Fault open source tool OpenDSS is used to perform the offline locating in the distribution network is more difficult due to its validation by creating faults in simulation. The IEEE 37 node unbalanced nature and the lack of sufficient measurements. test feeder was modified to add DGs at different locations and Smart grid implementation is going to change this in the near was used for the validation of the proposed algorithm. Multiple future. Fault locating methods that rely on the characteristic faults (both symmetrical and unsymmetrical) were created for response of the electrical network, such as the Fault Current the exhaustive validation of the technique. In more than 90% of the cases the location was identified in the first guess and for the Based method, which relies on the recording data of previous remaining 10% it took second guess and the faulted node was fault events (fault current and location) so that they can be indeed near to the first guess. compared with the response of the system when an actual fault occurs [3]. These methods have low cost but suffers Index Terms--Distributed power generation, Fault currents, from inaccuracy [4]. Fault location, Power distribution faults, Smart grids, State Another technique [5], called the Impedance Method, Estimation relies on the measurements at the substation of the distribution network. Generally, utilities have accurate I. INTRODUCTION metering devices at different locations for power flow Distribution lines are constantly subject to several fault information. The meters measure voltage and current at the conditions caused by factors such as adverse weather, car feeder when a fault occurs, thus a “fault impedance” value accidents, contact with animals, and equipment malfunction can be calculated during a fault. This impedance value is [1]. Fault currents can damage the distribution infrastructure proportional to the distance where the fault is located, giving and may create energy interruption that could be momentary some idea of where the fault could be. However, when a or sustained depending on the magnitude of the fault current distribution network has many laterals and is populated with and nature of the fault. In order to minimize outage time and DG sources, the accuracy of this method is questionable. provide high quality service, it is crucial for utilities to locate Other techniques such as Traveling Waves method [5] rely the fault position as quickly as possible. In general, crew on powerful meter devices. The wave characteristic of members look manually for blown fuses and circuit breakers alternate current (AC) allows this method to determine a fault in order to identify the fault location [2]. The process often location when comparing the difference between normal takes several hours. phase and the faulted phase of the traveling wave when a The need for faster and more accurate fault locating fault event takes place. These methods rely on time techniques has led to the development of some automated synchronization between meters generally performed by fault location methodologies [2] that have not been widely Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) systems. These techniques used due in part to lack of sufficient monitoring points until can be very accurate after some filtering of the signal since the recent increase in smart meter penetration. With the they can be too noisy. The disadvantage of implementing the deployment of Traveling Wave method is the large investment in a metering here will be tested for a three-phase, unbalanced and infrastructure across the distribution network. multilaterals distribution network. Also, it will consider Another method [5], known as Signal Injection technique, multiple sources of DG with their current contribution during is based on injecting a particular frequency signal through fault. In order to reduce the cost of data collection buses-to-ground circuit expecting it to return through earth infrastructure, the potential of collecting data from the along the fault line by ground point. The fault line is located already installed smart meters and other intelligent electronic by identifying the section where the signal flows through. devices are discussed. Although the metering structure is not as powerful as the III. FAULT EVENTS ASSESSMENT WITH SMART GRID GPS-based method used by the Traveling Wave method, the TECHNOLOGY Signal Injection technique still requires a massive amount of signal detectors such as mobile detectors, instrument One fundamental problem for the assessment of fault transformers Hall Sensor technology, remote detectors, etc. events in distribution networks is the lack of data given the [6]. This will reflect in a large investment by the utilities. scarce metering points in the system. However, the smart grid It can be inferred that most of the fault locating methods technologies are spreading and could overcome this problem used in the transmission side cannot be implemented in the and would be useful for fault analysis. Modern equipment distribution system given the unbalanced topology of such as Reclosers, AMI, IED, transfer switches and other distribution networks and the large cost of the installation of devices could provide necessary measurements for a fault complex metering devices for the application of the methods location analysis. Some of the more advanced Recloser mentioned above. controllers [13] include a communication application for Fault locating methods for distribution networks that remote control and monitoring, fault indication, power quality assume a radial structure of main feeders without considering analyzing and automation in medium-voltage secondary multilateral topology are presented in [7-9]. Javadian et al. distribution systems. These devices can store data for a [10] presents an algorithm that separates the distribution sequence of events that can be accessed remotely. Similarly, network into radial sections having their own measurements. data from Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), a group This method needs a significant change in the topology of the of technologies that provides connections between meters at system by adding meters at precise locations. Bretas and the consumers’ end and the utilities company can be used. Salim [11] presented a method using the positive-sequence Besides the energy consumption of the customer, smart apparent impedance. This assumption oversimplifies the meters can notify the utilities when an outage occurs (by problem since the method does not take into account the using event-driven data capture) and can record power quality inherent distribution-side unbalances and mutual phase events [14]. One commercial example is the GE family of coupling. Reference [12] shows a method that compares kV2c meters that have programmable sag and swell logging fault-on current with the pre-fault current obtained in an capabilities that can be triggered in case of fault conditions iterative method to determine the fault location. Although the [15]. method was tested for a three phase system, it did not A fault location technique based on state estimation is consider multilateral multisource topology. presented in the following sections. The state estimation needs fault-on currents of the sources, and fault-on voltages profile of some buses that can be gathered from a metering B. Fault Locating Techniques in Networks with DG. infrastructure and delivered to an operation center of the One of the major challenges for fault locating algorithms utilities in order to determine fault locations. Fig. 1 presents to be effective is the inclusion of DG in the distribution how the AMI and other intelligent electronic devices (IED) system. The most commonly present DGs are the can be connected to a server that can gather information for a Photovoltaic system (PV) and the Wind Turbines (WT). Centralized Fault Management System. The data obtained by Distributed generators are generally located close to the the meters can be processed in order to have a real-time particular load that is intended to be served. During the fault, monitoring of fault location identification. In this paper, the distributed generators become another source of contribution objective is to present a reliable fault locating method that can use the field measurements of a distribution network and to fault currents. A distribution network with PVs and WTs locate the fault in seconds on the screen of the operator. behaves differently than one with no DG presence during a fault event. Fault current also depends on the location of the DGs, their nominal voltage value and the specific control strategy of the DG present. Fault location identification for networks with DGs becomes more complex and therefore it is a field of high interest.
From the discussion above, it can be seen that a method is
needed that can be applied to an unbalanced and multi-source system. Moreover, the controlled limiting current scheme is Figure 1. Smart Grid Communication StructureState Estimation (SE) in an important part of DGs behavior during a fault and it will Distribution Networks be taken into account in this paper. The method presented A. State Estimation (SE) General Equation Based on these assumptions, pseudo-currents can be added SE is a powerful tool whenever measurement points are for equation (2) as follows: scarce in a system. This mathematical method is based on v1abc (F) finding an accurate regression of every possible state in the system (i.e. voltages and currents across a network). This p vabc (F) ______ v1abc (F) technique is widely used in transmission networks and now its grid use is increasing in the distribution side. The SE principle is Iabc (F) Φ ________ = viabc (F) . (3) simple and it is calculated by the following equation: 0 z̃ =Ax (1) vnabc (F) i Iabc (F) The variable is the column vector of m number of measurements. Matrix A is a characteristic matrix of the 0 i system formed by a permutation matrix Φ, and the Ybus matrix. Where Iabc (F) is the returning fault current at node i and 1 The variable is the column vector known as state variables Iabc (F) is the substation current seen by the feeder. Since all which are the unknown values in the network. Solving for load currents are neglected during fault conditions we have: would give a profile of the estimated state variables of the i grid Iabc F =-Iabc (F) (4) measured points and the non-measured points in the network. The expanded form of (1) is given in (2). Variables on the left- Equation (4) is valid for SE when the distribution system hand side are the voltage and current measurements during a has only one source (the grid). However, with the presence of fault condition. In order to be able to find a solution for the DG the situation changes and SE algorithm needs to take care state variables, more than half of the nodes in the system have of fault currents injected by the DGs. to be measured. C. Fault Current Contribution of Distributed Generators in v1abc (F) Distribution Network. p vabc (F) v1abc (F) Distributed Generation is spreading, and hence adding ______ more and more generation sources to the grid. In order to 1 Φ ________ Iabc (F) = viabc (F) . (2) develop a fault locating algorithm for this changing i circumstances in a distribution network, all the fault current Iabc (F) vnabc (F) contributions of distributed generators must be taken into n account. Neglecting load currents, the fault current at node i Iabc (F) becomes: It can be seen that the missing states for which there is no fault,i measurement available, must be estimated from the rest of the Iabc F =- (5) information of the system available through measurements. Where IGrid F , Isolar F , Iwind F and Iothers (F) are the This is called State Estimation and it is a process of estimating contributed fault currents by the main substation, solar, wind, unknown states from measured quantities. A good estimate and other types of DG, respectively. It is expected that the will leave out small errors, and compensate missing data by fault current data for all the DGs are available from the giving the “best estimate” of the state of the entire system with measurements of the sites. the measurements available. D. State Estimation in Distribution Network with the B. State Estimation in Distribution Networks with no DG presence of PV systems only. When using SE, it is a common practice to make analytical Equation (3) shown in the previous section can be assumptions in order to “fix” measurements to a certain value. modified to include all the pseudo-currents and current These theoretical values are called pseudo-measurements and measurements from all the sources. Assuming a system has if valid assumptions are made, they make the SE more connection to a main substation and a number of photovoltaic accurate. In distribution networks, the common current (PV) systems as sources we have: measurement available is at the main feeder circuit breaker at the substation. Therefore, to obtain the rest of the current v1abc (F) measurements, the following assumptions are made to perform p vabc (F) SE: ______ CB,1 Iabc (F) - The load currents are negligible in comparison to the fault v1abc (F) current. 0 Φ ________ - For ground faults, fault currents are considered to be PV,1 = viabc (F) . (6) Iabc (F) equal to the source current, expecting that it will return vnabc (F) through ground. PV,k Iabc (F) - In the line-to-line fault scenario, the measurement at the fault,i -Iabc (F) feeder substation provides the value of the returning current through the lines. 0 , Where is the current contribution of the PVs the fault lasts more than a specified time, a trip could be present, and (5) becomes issued to disconnect the PV unless other protection devices fault,i PV,1 PV,2 PV,k trip first. During current limiting mode, the inverter outer Iabc F = F + Iabc F + Iabc F + … + Iabc (F) (7) power control loop breaks and it effectively turns into a Equation (7) defines the fault current Iabc F at node i as fault,i current source. The fault response of an inverter is dominated the sum of all the currents of the PV systems connected to the by its method of current limiting. This should be reflected in network plus the contribution from the grid. the development of a fault model for the inverter [17]. Therefore, the PV systems were simulated as a current source IV. FAULT LOCATING ALGORITHM IN DISTRIBUTION in OpenDSS. The OpenDSS model behaves like a current NETWORKS BASED ON STATE ESTIMATION source with a simple interface inverter. When a Vmin value is Let us assume the total number of sources in the system is reached at the grid side of the PV, such as when a fault s. The source bus number position is defined in a vector p as: occurs, the PV system injects constant current. In this study, the current injected during a fault is considered as 1.25 per p = 1, 2, … , ,…, (8) unit of rated current. Following the notation in (8), the current contributions during a fault from every source become Iabc F , Iabc F … Iabc F .
An iterative program in MATLAB was developed for
locating the fault. The current measurement at node i becomes if a source is present. At the k-th iteration, a hypothetical faulted node introduces the value of , which is calculated with either (4) or (5) depending if there are one or more sources. All other node currents are neglected. Iabc F if i = pj Iiabc (F)= fault Iabc F if i = k (9) 0 otherwise After each iteration, the regression of the state estimation is compared to see if the hypothetical fault node k gives an accurate state of the system. The estimated voltage profile can be compared to the measurements to see if the predicted states are approximate with the following error calculation: k= z̃ [k]-Ax[k] (10) Figure 2. IEEE 37 node test feeder with 5 PV plants added Where · is the Euclidean norm. Vector z̃ [k] and x are the measurement and estimated values vectors for all the nodes in TABLE I. PV SPECIFICATIONS the system, respectively when the returning fault current is set at the k-th hypothetical node in the k-th iteration. Therefore, AC Power Power Phases AC Voltage Vmin Controller (kW) Factor (kV) (p.u.) Strategy the fault is located by the iteration that suits the best to the Constant kW, fault current hypothetical returning node. The node yielding 350 1 3 0.48 0.8 kVAR the smallest error is considered as the faulted node. TABLE II. SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TRANSFORMER FOR PV V. TESTING & RESULTS CONNECTIONS For validating the algorithm, the IEEE 37 test feeder kVA kV-high kV-low % reactance has been used. The test feeder does not have any DGs on it. 350 4.8, Delta 0.48, Delta 3.0 For our case studies, we have added five PV plants at buses 711, 731, 729, 718 and 720 through transformers. The faults were simulated using OpenDSS and pre-fault and post-fault B. Measurement Locations data were used in the state estimation algorithm implemented Pegoraro et al. [18] presents an algorithm for metering in MATLAB. location optimization that can be used with the state estimation method presented on this paper. For this case study, A. IEEE 37 Nodes Test Feeder with Distributed Generation current measurements are taken from the main feeder at the Different types of faults were simulated in OpenDSS with substation and at the locations of PV. Voltage measurements the IEEE 37 nodes test feeder [16]. Five PV generators were are taken from the end of the branches resembling a customer placed as shown in Fig. 2. Identical PV systems and metering point. A total number of 24 meters are used on the transformers were used and their specifications are shown in IEEE 37 nodes test feeder and their functions are shown in Table I and II, respectively. table III. Generally, during a fault in a PV system, the control TABLE III. NUMBER OF METERS IN THE TEST FEEDER function limits the fault current to a threshold of 1.2-1.4 p.u. If Element Number of Voltage Current For the grounded transformer connection, Table VI Meters Measurement Measurement presents detailed data for the two nodes that were not Main Substation 1 Yes Yes identified in the first guess. For each of these cases, the PV 5 Yes Yes relative error between the actual faulted node and the best guess is very close, meaning that the state estimator was very Bus 18 Yes No close to identifying the faulted node correctly. Table VII C. Fault simulations and Results shows the identification error for grounded and ungrounded connections, that is, the difference between the SE of the The current and voltage profiles resembling field correct faulted and the first guess output of the algorithm. measurements during fault conditions were collected using These errors could be due to the unknown load currents. The OpenDSS and then fed to the state estimator. The SE analyzes state estimator runs with the assumption that the returning the fault-on measurements and determines an estimate of the current is equal to the current contribution of all sources entire system when placing the fault at a hypothetical faulted present in the system which neglects load currents. node. Accuracy of the estimation is measured by its error and it determines the faulted node. Overall, the algorithm shows a 90% of accuracy in finding the right faulted node for a two-line-to-ground fault scenario. Three-phase Balanced Fault A three-phase balanced bolted fault was set in thirty four TABLE IV. TWO-LINE-TO-GROUND FAULT LOCATING ALGORITHM OUTPUT nodes of the system, one at a time. Fault location algorithm presented in section V was used to determine the location of First Second the fault event. Connection Guess Failed Total Guess (Correct) Thirty four nodes, one node at a time, were set to a 3-phase Delta-Wye 31 2 1 34 balanced fault. After feeding the fault-on voltages and currents Delta-Delta 29 3 2 34 the measurements to the state estimator, fault locations were guessed accurately for each fault-on condition. It has been found that the state estimator accurately locates all thirty four TABLE V. DELTA-DELTA CONFIGURATION FAULT LOCATING SECOND GUESSINGS fault locations as a first guess which translates to 100% accuracy in identifying fault locations performance. 1st Guess 2nd Guess Faulted Identified Node Identified Node Identification Further tests were made by changing the IEEE 37 nodes Node SE SE Error (%) Node Node test feeder main substation transformer configuration. The test Error Error feeder as given in [16] is totally ungrounded at the 4.8 kV-side 729 733 12.2567 729 12.2787 0.18 hence giving the zero sequence current no returning path. New 738 737 9.8942 738 9.8962 0.02 configuration was changed from a Delta-Delta connection as to a Delta-Y with the neutral solidly grounded. This change 732 775 13.5940 732 13.6232 0.21 was made in order to determine the algorithm accuracy in both grounded and ungrounded systems. Since the faults were set TABLE VI. DELTA-WYE CONFIGURATION FAULT LOCATING SECOND on the 4.8 kV side of the system, changing the 230 kV GUESSINGS transformer connections did not give any effect in algorithm 1st Guess Identified 2nd Guess accuracy. All thirty four nodes subject to a fault were correctly Faulted Node Identified Node Identification guessed. The technique presented a 100% success rate for Node Node SE Error Node SE Error Error (%) three-phase balanced fault. 729 733 12.2567 729 12.2787 0.18 Two-phase-to-ground Fault 738 737 9.8942 738 9.89624 0.02 A two-phase-to-ground fault is applied to the same 34 nodes as in the previous case. The setup of the system was the TABLE VII. FAILED NODES ERROR FOR TWO-LINE-TO-GROUND FAULT same as in the previous case except for the fault type. Table IV presents the output of the algorithm containing the number of 1st Guess Correct Identification Connection Identified cases where the fault was identified in the first guess, the Faulted Node Error (%) number of nodes located in the second guess and the nodes Delta-Wye 718 733 0.889391 that failed to be identified. It also shows the output for grounded and ungrounded transformer configuration. Twenty 718 775 0.243743 nine faulted nodes were guessed correctly for the ungrounded Delta-Delta 741 775 0.517613 connection and thirty for the grounded configuration. Table V shows the nodes that were located as a second best guess with their respective state estimation error in the Line-to-Line Fault ungrounded transformer connection. It can be seen that the Table VIII presents the output of the algorithm for a line- algorithm failed to guess them correctly in the first guess by a to-line fault applied to the IEEE 37 nodes test feeder. very small error (less than 0.2%). Grounded and ungrounded transformers connections presented similar results not guessing the correct fault location of two nodes by a very small percentage error as presented in table faults and transformer connections to demonstrate that the IX and table X. The algorithm missed by a small percentage. technique can be implemented in the distribution network with Again, it can be seen that the algorithm guessed the right fault different configurations. Although in real-life it is expected location for a 90% of the nodes that were set to a line-to-line that fault current contribution of DG will be available from the fault. field measurement provided by the smart grid, in this case an off-line simulation program (OpenDSS) is used to collect measurement data. The important aspect of this technique is TABLE VIII. LINE-TO-LINE FAULT LOCATING ALGORITHM OUTPUT FOR that it can identify the fault location with more than 90% DELTA-DELTA CONFIGURATION accuracy in the first guess even with the presence of DGs in the network. For very small number of cases, the fault location First Guess was found in the second best guess with a small error Connection Second Guess Failed Total (Correct) difference which can be attributed to the approximations and Delta-Wye 30 2 2 34 assumptions that were made. The SE error in these cases was Delta-Delta 29 2 3 34 very small indicating that just for a fractional value the guess was incorrect. By guessing the node closest to the fault, the TABLE IX. DELTA-DELTA CONFIGURATION FAULT LOCATING SECOND algorithm can be used together with technique in [18] to GUESSINGS determine the location of the fault in a line section. 1st Guess Identified 2nd Guess REFERENCES Faulted Node Identified Node Identification Node SE Error (%) [1] T. Baldwin, D. Kelle, J. Cordova, N. Beneby, “Fault locating in Node SE Error Node Distribution Networks with the Aid of the Advanced Error Measurement Infrastructure,” Power Systems Conference at 729 733 12.2567 729 12.278 0.18 Clemson University, 2014. 738 737 9.89424 738 9.8962 0.02 [2] “IEEE Guide for Determining Fault Location on AC Transmission and Distribution Lines”IEEE Standard C37.114- 2014. TABLE X. DELTA-WYE CONFIGURATION FAULT LOCATING SECOND [3] G. C. Lampley, “Fault analysis on electrical distribution system,” GUESSINGS in IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference, 2008. 1st Guess 2nd Guess [4] “Fault detection and location on electrical distribution,” in Rural Faulted Identified Node Identified Node Identification Electric Power Conference. IEEE 2002. Node Error (%) [5] (5)Y. Li, Q. Du, X. Qi, Q. Pang, G. Zhu, “A review of Single- SE Node Node SE Error Phase-to-Ground Fault Location Methods in Distribution Error Networks,” 4th International Conference on Electric Utility 729 733 12.256 729 12.2787 0.17 Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies, 2011. [6] G. Buigues, V. Valverde, I. Zamora, J. Mazon, and E. Torres, 738 737 9.894 738 9.8962 0.02 “Signal Injection techniques for fault location in distribution networks.” International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power Quality, 2012. Single-line-to-ground Fault [7] Y. Lu, L. Hua, J.Wu, G.Wu, and G. Xu, “A study on effect of dispersed generator capacity on power system protection,” IEEE Table XI presents the results for single-line-to-ground fault Power Eng. Soc. Gen. Meeting, Tampa, FL, Jun. 2007. tests for the test feeder. From a total of thirty four nodes that [8] Z. Xiangjun, K. Li, W. Chan, and S. Sheng, “Multi-agents based were subject to a fault, twenty five resulted as the correct protection for distributed generation systems,” in , Proc. IEEE Int. guess in the first outcome of the algorithm. Seven were Conf. Electric Utility Deregulation, Restructuring and Power selected as the second best guess, and only two failed to be Technologies, Apr. 2004, vol. 1, pp. 393–397. [9] S. Javadian, A. Nasrabadi, M.-R. Haghifam, and J. Rezvantalab, identified. It was observed that even though the algorithm “Determining fault’s type and accurate location in distribution guessed the correct faulted node as a second guess, the first systems with DG using MLP neural networks,” in Proc. Int. Conj. guess were adjacent to the correct ones. This implies that the Clean Electrical Power, Jun. 2009, pp. 284-289. state estimation can still give a good starting point for the [10] S. Javadian, M. Haghifam, and N. Rezaei, “A fault location and utilities technical crews to look for the fault location. protection scheme for distribution systems in presence of dg using mlp neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, Jul. 2009, pp. 1–8. TABLE XI. SINGLE-LINE-TO-GROUND FAULT LOCATING RESULTS [11] A. Bretas and R. Salim, “Fault location in unbalanced DG First Guess systems using the positive sequence apparent impedance,” in Identification Second Guess Failed Total Proc. IEEE/Power Eng. Soc. Transmission Distribution Conf. (Correct) Expo.: Latin America, Aug. 2006, pp. 1–6. Quantity 25 7 2 34 [12] D. Johnsonbaugh and A. Girgis, “Fault location for distribution systems with distributed generation using a modified three phase method,” presented at the Power Systems Conf. Distributed VI. CONCLUSIONS Generation, Advanced Metering and Communication, Clemson, SC, Mar. 2004. In this paper, an algorithm is proposed that can be used to [13] ABB, “Grid Automation, Recloser Protection and Control identify the fault location based on limited measurement data RER615, Product Guide,” p. 13, Sep 2013. available from the smart equipment that is already becoming [14] S. Depuru, L.Wang, and V. Devabhaktuni, “Smart meters for ubiquitous in a distribution network. To demonstrate the power grid: Challenges, issues, advantages and status,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, the IEEE 37 node test 2736–2742, 2011. feeder was used. The method was tested for different types of [15] GE Energy, “Commercial & Industrial Electricity Metering,” pp. 1–8, May 2012. [16] IEEE PES Distribution Systems Analysis Subcommittee Radial Test Feeder, http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders/ [17] C. Plet, T. Green, “Fault Response of Inverter Interfaced Distributed Generators in Grid-Connected Applications”, Electric Power Systems Research 106 (2014) 21– 28. [18] S. M. Brahma, “Fault Location in Power Distribution System with Penetration of Distributed Generation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 26, No. 3, July 2011, 1545-1553.