176

EEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 1995

DISTRIBUTION LINE PROTECTION PRACTICES INDUSTRYSURVEYRESULTS IEEE POWER SYSTEM RELAYING COMMllTEE REPORT

Working Group on Distribution Protection : W. M. Strang, Chairman, R. M. Westfall. Vice Chairman Contributing Members: A. N. Darlington, P. R. Drum, D. Fulton, E. Guro, J. D. Huddleston 111, T.L. Kaschalk, J. R. Latham, W. J. Marsh, M. J . McDonald, R. J. Moran, R. D. Pettigrew, R. P. Taylor, J.T.Tengdin Kev Words Distribution Protection, Protective Relaying, Reclosers, Reclosing, Phase Protection, Ground Protection, High Impedance Ground Fault. Abstract This report presents the results of an extensive survey of utility practices for the protection of distribution lines at the substation. Results of similar surveys were published in 1983 (Ref. 1) and in 1988 (Ref. 2). In this survey, the first eight sections were comparable to the earlier surveys. In addition, these sections were expanded to collect more data on the reasons behind a practice and on the methods used. A ninth section was added to address the impact of Dispersed Sources of Generation (DSG) on distribution protection. The responses to this survey have been comparedto the previous survey in an attempt to detect any trends in the protection of distribution circuits. Introduction The IEEE Power Systems Relaying Committee (PSRC) has the responsibility of reviewing and reporting on current practices in protective relaying. In the distribution area, the "EffectivenessOf Distribution Protection"WorkingGroup of the Line Protection Subcommittee has the ongoing role to survey the utility industry at periodic intervals. The data collected through this survey, when compared to the previous surveys, indicates that there are some trends emerging. The advantages of these changing practices are discussed within this report. Further surveys will be conducted to determine the extent of these and future trends. About the Questionnaire The questionnaire used for this survey was based on the previous questionnaire with two expansions: 1) emphasis was added in all sections asking for the rationale and methodology of a practice, as well as what changes in distribution practices have taken place in the last five years, and 2) added a section to determine the impact of dispersed sources of generation on distribution protection. Where appropriate, the data was collected by major voltage class: 5kV, 15kV, 25kV, and 35kV. SECTION 1 GENERAL The questionnaire was sent to individuals invdved in distribution system protection for investor-owned, cooperative, and municipal utilities and for large industrials in the United States and Canada. Responses were received from 107 utilities. Of these, 67 had responded to the previous 1988 survey. The respondents were asked to limit their replies to ACTUAL PRESENT PRACTICES. Past practices and policies for older portions of the system are not of interest because they would not be applied if that portion were to be installed today. The respondents were requested not to guess at any of the answers.

If the desired information was not readily available or could not be provided in the form requested by the survey, respondents were asked not to answer the question. The respondents were asked to provide a significant amount of description with their answers. It was feared that this would have a negative impact on the completeness of the returns. This was not the case, as the respondents included more discussion than in previous surveys. This additional information was used in the analysis of the data and preparation of the presented results. Survev Results - The results of the survey are given for each section. The actual survey questions are not included in this report, as the questionnairewas 46 pages long. In tabulating the results, the number of "yes" responsesand "no" responsesare given where appropriate, and may not total 107. Not all respondentsanswered all the questions. This section of the survey requested general information about the utility. The respondent was also asked if the utility name could be used in conjunction with any of the results or specific questions. In most cases, the answer was "yes." SECTION 2 SYSTEM DATA Svstem Load Each utility was asked to state their total distribution load and distribution station supply transformer size by voltage class, to assure that data was coming from a broad base. One hundred seven utilities reported distribution load ranging from a few MVA to over 20,000 MVA.

TOTAL DISTRIBUTION LOAD

UTILITIES

5,000 MVA and above

1,000 MVA to 4,999 MVA

999 MVA and below

31

No Size Given

20

Voltacle Class Most utilities had more than one distribution voltage, with 15kV being the most common. From those reporting, the distribution load at each voltage is: Voltage Class
5 kV 15 kV 25 kV 35 kV
Total

Load, MVA 17,437 173,729 54,808 32,484 278,458

Yo of Total
6.3 62.4 19.7 11.6
100.0

#of Utilities

73
98

46

33

This paper was presented at the 1994 IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition held in Chicago, Illinois, April 1G15, 1994.

Transformer Size The following table gives a breakdown, by the number of utilities, of the largest total substation transformer capacity (three-phase, self-cooled rating) bused together at one distribution station.

0885-8977/95/$04.00 0 1994 IEEE

177
TRANSFORMER SIZE Less than 10 MVA 10 to 20 MVA 20 to 50 MVA 3 39 17 10 15kV 3Phase Phase-Gnd MAXIMUMAVAILABLE FAULT CURRENT 4OkA 19 23
~~ ~ ~~~~

1OkA to 20kA

>20kA 8 5 13 10 5 4
4
1

5 kV

3Phase Phase-Gnd

22

20 28 28 8 8
4

38

52 25 26 17 17

TotalResponses

63

92

43

28

25 kV

3Phase

Main Interruptincl Device When asked what main interrupting devices are used, the utilities gave the following replies, with many using more than one device:

Phasdjnd
35 kV

3Phase Phase-Gnd

Only 6 of the 107 utilities reported that they measure fault currents.
Load Unbalance Monitorinq Nineteen utilities report they have installed new equipment to monitor load unbalance and five more are planning to add this. Harmonic Monitorinq Thirteen utilities report they are using portable equipment to monitor harmonics and five more are in the planning stage. SECTION 3 PHASE PROTECTION Grounded Neutrals In every voltage class, the vast majority of utilities (94-99%) use multi-groundedneutrals: At 5kV - 96% (70 of 73); at 15kV 99% (97 of 98); at 25kV 98% (45of 46); and at f 33). 35kV - 94% (31 O

I Relaved Circuit Switcher I Relaved Motor Owrated Disconnect

Re!ayed Recloser
Total Responses

I I

41 18 10 189

I I

Feeder lnterruptinq Devices device is most frequently used:

I

- At the

substation, a relayed
I

InstantaneousTrip (Usaqe) Seventy-six of the 107 respondents (71%) apply phase-overcurrent protection devices with instantaneous trips for the purpose of "fuse saving." In an earlier survey initiatedin 1988, the use of "fuse saving" fast trips was more popular, with 91% of those respondents indicating their use. The cause of this 20 point decline can only be speculated with the data available.

FEEDER INTERRUPTING DEVICE Relayed Circuit Breaker Relayed Recloser

I
I

Responses 92 27 40

Electronic Recloser

I HvdtaulicRecloser I

I TotalRes~onsesI

28 187

I I
5 kV
15kV 25kV
35 kV

Multi-Function Relavs One of the purposes of this survey is to determine trends in distribution protection. This new category was added to determine if utilities are using packaged relay functions for either transformer or feeder protection.
RESPONSES Transfomr Protectkm Feeder Protection

Nearly all of the multi-function relays incorporate three-phase and ground instantaneous and time-overcurrent relaying and reclosing.
Desicrn Fault Current Levels The vast majority of utilities reported that their design level phase and ground fault currents are equal. Maximum Available Fault Current Only 6 utilities use reactors to limit fault current. The rest depend on the substation transformer and system impedance. Here are the fault current levels (number of responses):

Hvdraulic Recloser
~ ~

1 instantaneous

15% 16%

17% 27%

15% 20%

12%
9%

2 instantaneous

178

As shown in the table, the use of one instantaneous trip is dominant where relays provide the trip intelligence. The second fast trip operation becomes more prevalent in non-relayed recloser applications (both electronic and hydraulic). Only one utility used three instantaneous trips.
Instantaneous TriDs (Fuse Savina) Of the 76 utilities that use instantaneous trips to save fuses, only 11 reported that they have data to indicate the success level of their efforts. Of these 11 utilities, only one was able to provide a percentage of successful saves (52%). Others are in the process of evaluating data. One utility indicates that the "fuse saving" effort has resulted in a number of customer complaintsdue to the momentary interruptions. Instantaneous TriDs (Other PurDoses) Thirty-four of the 76 utilities (45%) using instantaneous trips for "fuse saving" reported that they also used instantaneous trips for purposes other than "fuse saving." Many utilities cited more than one purpose. The additional purposes were: Limit equipment damage Enhance coordination Minimize voltage dip duration Limit duration of flash bum Limit outage time Other Total responses

5kV

15kV 78% 59%

25kV 83% 72%

35kV 97% 79%

Between feeder phase devices

74% 53%

If YES, including all reclosers with different reset times

Between customer and utility owned devices

67%

78%

76%

97%

To promote complete coordination with customer-owned phase protective devices, the responding utilities employ a wide range of methods. These methods vary from: a) installingan additional device at the customer service point to protect the other customers on the circuit from miscoordination to b) depending on nuisance trips to get the customer's attention. The most common methods are as follows: Review of customer's equipment and settings Working with customer/contractor pre-construction Utility recommending settings andlor doing testing

38
30 20 19 14

a 129

28 22 12

Personnel protection during live-line maintenance was one of the items listed in the "othet" category. Instantaneous TriDs (Multiple) Of those utilities utilizing instantaneous tripping on their distribution systems, single instantaneous or fast trips are favored by at least a two to one margin at all voltage levels.

Attitudes toward coordination have not changed significantly since the 1988 survey. The vast majority of the responding utilities expected coordination then and still do. The relationship between the utilities and their customers also appears to have remained fairly stable in those areas concerning coordination. If miscoordination of feeder phase protection is permitted, a few utilities do so at different current levels, as shown here:

5kV

15kV 32% 68%

25kV

35kV 21% 79%

I

MULTIPLE SINGLE

22%
78%

33%
67%

Fault Level
Hiah
LOW

5kV
I

15kV
I

25kV 17% 7%

3 5 kV
6% 15%
I

15% 11%

19% 10%

The majority of those using two fast trips are using reclosers as the feeder protective device. Others are now applying both a low set and a high set instantaneous element, with reclosing only for the low set unit. Instantaneous TriDDina (Modifications) Thirty-nine utilities indicated that they had modified or eliminated their "fuse saving" efforts in an attempt to eliminate nuisance trips and customer complaints due to the resultant momentary interruptions. The modifications have been somewhat customer-complaint driven and have varied from total removal on critical customer circuits to the blocking of instantaneous trips on urban customers and enabling those trips by SCADA during storm conditions. Feeder Coordination Most utilities insist on complete feeder timeovercurrent phase protection coordination between the various protective devices. This includes customer-owned as well as utility-owneddevices.

Of those utilities permitting miscoordination, 70% pemit it at high fault current levels. The most common reason given is the simultaneous fast feeder tripping and fuse blowing on high fault currents. SECTION 4 GROUND PROTECTION Ground Overcurrent The majority of those responding apply ground overcurrent protection on the main interrupting device as well as on the feeder protection devices. This table, using the format of maidfeeder, shows the basis for pickup settings. When compared to the previous survey, the relative numbers are essentially the same. The one exception is line C.3 (a % of phase trip pickup). In the previous survey, there was no comparable question,

GROUND PROTECTI ON

Number of Responses (MainI

5kV

29/49
33115

I 1
69/83 24/13 -169
-123

15kV: ; g

38/44

2a I 23

5 kV
Between customer-owned and utility-owned devices

15 kV 68 61 52

25 kV
30

35 kV 25 22 19

46
35

B. Apply

-139 -120

-139 -16

-126'

Instantaneousor Fast Trip

Between feederground devices Including all reclosers with different reset times

27 23

C. Basis of TOC D C ik U D when a D D 8 il

1. a % above estimated

%qqx
1114 1617 1313 1213

26

load unbalancedue to switching

3.a % of the phase trip

pickup

4.a % Of the base

transformer full load
5. a % of t he feeder emergency load rating

1 I
2/12

6/11 614/21

: , I ;

When miscoordination of feeder ground protection is permitted, more utilities allow it at low fault current than at high fault current by a 60:40 ratio overall (ranging from 2:l at 5kV and 35kV to almost 1:1 at 25kV. For customer-owned versus utility-owned feeder ground devices, miscoordinationwas accepted only when that customer load was affected and for cases in which the ground overcurrent relays would not coordinate with customer fuses. Several utilities noted that they set the utility devices to protectthe utility system. Feeder Ground Instantaneous Trip These responses cover the application of instantaneous or fast-trip ground overcurrent protection on various interrupting devices. When asked if they had data to show the success rate of their "fuse saving" program, 77 utilities said "no." Only 3 of the 5 who said "yes" gave success rates. They were 52% (analysis of operating records), 60-70% (estimated), and 88% (from digital relay event records).

6.a % of the feeder

3/11

319

normal load rating Svstem Unbalance Most utilities who responded to this question limit the permissible unbalance to 50% or less. There is little relative change versus the previous survey. A larger number of utilities permit unbalance of 26-50% of the feeder ground TOC minimum pickup, but hold the percent of total load unbalance to less than 25%.

When outages are caused by load unbalance (other than cold load pickup), 90% of the respondents (84 of 93) said such outages are not tolerable. In the last survey, it was 81% (67 of 83). Feeder Coordination A significant number of utilities insist on complete feeder ground protection coordination betweenthe various feeder protectivedevices, as well as with customer owned devices. A variety of methods are used to achieve complete coordination with customer-owned ground protective devices:

Other than for "fuse saving," instantaneous or fast trip feeder ground protection was used to:
- limit equipment damage - enhance coordination - limit duration of flash bum - minimize duration of voltage dip - limit outage time - other reasons

39 responses 27 26 19 13 5

Personnel safety was not mentioned. Protection Problems The majority of responses indicated they either did not have either cold-load pickup (CLPU) due to excessive unbalance, or magnetizing inrush using their present feeder ground

- review and approve customer's setting - utility recommendlmakesettings - checkkerify customer coordination

- mutual agreements with customers

24 14 7 5

180
protection settings. Those who indicated they were experiencing CLPU problems usually solved the problem by re-balancing rather than by increasing ground relay settings. There was no significant change from the previous survey.
RECLOSING AllEMPTS Number of Responses
It of Redosing Attempts

5kV 4 16

II
I

FEEDER GROUND PROTECTION PROBLEMS

Problmwith:

lCo!dLoadPBkupDue To Unbalance Magnetizing Inrush

:1 I { I I ; I { 1
I
Nurnber of ResDonses
I

15kV 7
29

25kV 5 24 15
4

35kV 3 13 12
4

One

Two

I 5kV I 15kV I 25kV I 35kV I

Three

3 4 4 8
7
61 8
92

Four
TotalResponses

48

32

Yes No 52 82 37
30

IOPENGERVAL BETWEENRECLOSING ATTEMPTS

Open Interval Time Number o f Responses

Untransformed Service Customers When the desired feeder ground trip sensitivity and coordination cannot be maintained, 39 of 97 respondents require that the untransformedservice customer install a main interrupting device with a ground trip. Of these, 11 respondents have a published policy defining the limits beyond which a customer must install a main interrupting device. Only 1 utility enclosed a copy of its policy. Most (67) reported they have no published policy. Utilities without a published policy were asked "What is the maximum fuse size above which a customer is required to install service entrance equipment with phase and ground trip?" Compared to the last survey, the practices at 5kV and 15kV are about the same. At 25kV and 35kV, the maximum fuse size has decreased from 250 Amp to 200 Amp.

6 10
~~

11 - 2 0

0 - 1 second
1-5 6-10 11 - 2 0 21 -60
11 4 22 7

5 4 13 6 1

7
42 14

4 25

29 13

Number o f Responses FUSE SIZE Less than 65

am^

>61 seconds 35kV 2

5kV 1

15kV 3

25kV 3

125 amp

>50semnds

11

4 0 seconds 250 amp

I
I

I
I

10 - 30 -

300 amD
I I

I
I

131-50-

3 1

1
I

3 1 2

I
1

I
1

>50seconds

I l l

I I

SECTION 5 RECLOSING AT THE SUBSTATION On Overhead Lines Automatic reclosing continues to be a universal practice among the 107 responding utilities. All use at least one reclosing attempt following a relay trip. The number of attempts (trips) in each voltage class is essentially unchanged since the last survey. The open intervals between reclosing attempts used by utilities between tripping and reclosing attempts also shows very little change from the last survey. The open intervals between tripping and reclosing attempts are tabulated by voltage level.

Other Reclosins Practices Sixty five utilities reported they use a different reclosing sequence for other than standard overhead lines. The questionnaire listed six reasons. Here are the replies:

- to allow downstream sectionalizers time to trip - to limit feeder interrupting duty

- to limit transformer through faults - the presence of SCADA at the substation - in subs fed directly from transmission
- the presence of shield wires

26 17 12 10 5 1

Underqround Cables Utilities were asked to state the largest percentage o f line which could be cable and still use normal overhead line reclosing practices.

181
UNDERGROUND CABLES Cable Length as a Percentage of Total Line Length the hope that this monitoring will aid them in scheduling maintenance for the substation breakers. In addition, 20 utilities are planning to add such equipment to their system as a part of the substation protection and control package.
7

I
5 kV I I 9 5 9 7

Number of Responses

15 kV
I

25 kV
I

35 kV

20%orless

1 1 2 1

23

1 1 2 1 I I 7 5 5 2

SECTION 6 SYSTEM FAULTS Fault Statistics Seventy-eight of the 107 respondents keep statistics on the number of outages on their distribution systems. Of these, 30 respondentskeep statistics on the types of distribution system faults. Eighteen of these reported they record the number of faults automatically cleared. Seven reported that they maintain records regarding faults that must be manually cleared (i.e., high impedance ground faults). These manually cleared faults involve ground, but do not include a broken conductor. Six utilities have statistics for events involving broken conductors and not involving ground or other phase conductors. lnterruptina Duty Only 3 of the respondents indicated they monitor the accumulated symmetrical intempted current for a breaker, 92 said they do not. Detection of HlGF Utilities were asked if they had cases in which feeder relays, reclosers, or fuses did not detect high impedance ground faults (HIGF). To help define the severity of the problem, utilities were asked to state the percentage of their total recorded ground faults that were not cleared automatically. The tabulation is the number of utilities answering yes to a question. To provide a perspective, the number of utilities in this survey having each voltage class is also shown.

40% or less I ___ 60% or less 80% or less 100% or less

I 2 0 I 6 18 10

5
3

I
I

Each explanation submitted appeared to be unique for that utilitys practices. Reset Interval Essentially all (96%) employ a time delay reset after successful reclosing. For 76 respondents, the reset time is fixed. With a fixed reset time, only 16 of the 76 experience excessive interrupting operations due to repetitive faults - without reclosing lockout. The reset times reported were:

I
I

INTERVAL

1
10 - 30 37 61 - 120 >120 seconds

<1oseconds

I I

# of RESPONSES 2

Possible Chanqes To Present Practices About 14% of the utilities (15) stated they are considering a change in their reclosing practices. The objective stated in every case was improved customer service, with each change tailored for that utility. Effectiveness Statistics Just 18 utilities reported they keep statistics on the effectiveness of their automatic reclosing practices. Only 3 utilities indicated a need to modify the present reporting practices. One utility reported that 83% of their faults are cleared with one reclose. In the 1988 survey, 15 utilities reported that they kept these statistics, while in the 1984 survey, none did. Reclosinq Practices Revised Twenty-six percent of the utilities stated they have changed their reclosing practices in the last five years. Some of the reasons given were to reduce customer complaints of blinking lights, limit through fault exposure of substation transformers, and to have uniform reclosing practices across the utility. Eight utilities commented that legal opinions or interpretations had been made with regard to automatic reclosing on distribution feeders. No further explanations were given; none had been requested. Computer Reclosing Thirteen utilities state they had a computer or programmable logic controller (PLC) perform automatic reclosing. Also, 6 utilities report they are using computers as a standard or trial installation on their distribution system. Within the next five years, 24 utilities stated they are planning to use a computer or PLC for reclosing. In the 1988 survey, 10 utilities stated they had plans to use a computer for automatic reclosing within the next five years. Fault Monitoring Twenty-four utilities reported they now have equipment on their system (other than mechanical counters) to monitor total interrupted current or the total number of tripping operations of the interrupting device. Nine of these utilities stated

The numbers in the following tabulation are essentially the same as in the past survey. A number of additional questions were asked about HIGF, but with vely few responses as most utilities do not have detailed data on HIGF. The respondent was asked to indicate whether a phase or ground relay that was expected to see the fault did not respond to HIGF. The survey did not ask why the relay did not detect the HlGF condition.
HlGF NOT DETECTED

f Utilities Total Number o

Feederrelaysnotdetecting
by phase relays by gmnd relays by neither phase or ground relavs

1 I ;1 9 1 ; 1
22
13 17 7

182
Utilities were asked about the type of surface contacted by an energized conductor that resulted in a HlGF (high impedance ground fault). Here are the responses:
TYPE OF SURFACE WITH HlGF Number of Responses 5 kV h o t a l Numberof Utilities

Conductor Burndown Only a small percentage of distribution system faults (less than 3% in any voltage class) result in conductor bumdown. Some of the factors contributing to the bumdown problem were given by the respondentsas:
Low current levels and long fault times Ground conductor is not continuous Small conductor Covered conductor

73

I I

15 kV
98

I I

25 kV 46

I I

35 kV

33

The most frequently cited corrective actions taken to reduce bumdowns are:
CORRECTIVE ACTION Improve tree trimming Install larger conductor Eliminate unfused taps
Reduce feeder fuse size
18

Dirt or G ~ a s TES? Pole or Crossarm Concrete

17 18 21 19

44 42

7 12

RESPONSES

36 36

10
8

5
1

15

New Products Utilities were asked if they are evaluating or using equipment which allows them to review recent distribution system faults. Thirty-two said they are in the evaluationstage, and another 22 said they are using these devices at their most important locations. The following devices were named:

I
The report of an uncleared HlGF is generated by: Line Operating Department Line Truck Engineering Department Employee Recall No Official Report Other Sources
40%

TYPE OF DEVICE Microprocessor based relays

RESPONSES

23%
12%

Fault Recorders

12% 6%
6%

I Electronic controls for reclosers I SCADA systems

I I

I I

HlGF ProtectionSchemes Fourteen utilities respondedthat they

have tried to apply a protection scheme for the sole purpose of detecting HIGF. The questionnaire requested a description of the scheme used and asked if there were any coordination problems associated with the scheme. The respondents listed the following five schemes: SCHEME TYPE Relay Bias by Load Current Low Pickup Ground Relavs RESPONSES

From a long list of features, utilities were asked to check those with the most benefit to them. The request was to check all that applied. Ninety one utilities replied, with many multiple responses. The most frequently cited were:
FEATURE Fault current magnitude (phase and ground) Event recording and logging Fault t y p e (mulliphase, single phase-to-ground,etc.) Storage for a series of fault events Remote intermaation (data rettieval) RESPONSES
78

TI
70

68

65

Ground Relay Blocks Reset of Reclosina Relav Texas A&M Trial Installation Oeen Conductor Detector
1

I Faultlocation I Self diagnostics and alarm contacts

Local display of measured values
Phase balance monitoring Voltage monitoring

51

Some of the responding utilities have tried more than one scheme. Eighty-eightof the responding utilities have not applied this type of protection.
Coordination of HlGF Detection Schemes All but one of the reportedschemes (4 of 5) had coordination or unbalanceproblems. Most appear to have been taken out of service because the problems outweighed the benefits. The open conductor detector, while apparently satisfactory, requires a large number of detector transmitters for complete coverage.

Watt and var monitoring Monitor breaker owrate time

42

I ~naloa outDuts to intedace W/SCADA I Digital outputs to interfacew/SCADA

Total intempted current recording and alarm Demand level capability Remote intermation and settina manidation

1 I

41
39

-1

38
37

35

183
SECTION 7 COLD LOAD PICKUP (CLPU) AND MAGNETIZING INRUSH Cold-Load Pickup (CLPU) Of the 102 utilities respondingto this section, 77 (75%) stated they have had CLPU problems. Of the 77, 95% reported problems at 15kV, 34% at 5kV, 25% at 25kV, and 8% at 35kV.

SymDathetic Trippinq Twenty-one respondents reported sympathetic trips of breakers on unfaulted feeders. A variety of causes were suspected. In some cases, transformer connections, large motors, or large feeder capacitor banks were suspected of causing increased currents in the unfaulted feeder. The most common cures were to alter relaying on the feeder by changing settings or removing an instantaneoustrip. Capacitor Switching Ten respondentsspecifically cited capacitor bank switching as the cause of undesirablefeeder tripping. Cures included moving or reducing the size of the capacitor banks, removing fast trips from feeder overcurrent relays, and installing series inductance. Coordination Between Bus and Feeder Relays The minimum coordination margin between transformer or bus relays and the feeder relays varied from a low of 3 cycles to a high of 60 cycles. Of the 93 responses to this question, 9 selected less than 12 cycles, 54 use between 12 and 20 cycles, 16 were between 21 and 30 cycles, and 14 were greater than 30 cycles. Only a few responses were made to the question of maximum coordinating current levels. Typically, utilities used a current between 5 and 10 times the phase overcurrent relay pickup setting. Only 10 utilities indicated a requirement for all overcurrent relays to be reset before a reclose is permitted. Roughly half (35 of 68) believe a fast reset of reclosing or overcurrent relays aids in coordination. Coordination Between Feeder Relays and Fuses Minimum coordination margins allowed between feeder overcurrent relays and line fuse total clearing times are tabulated in the two tables for PHASE PROTECTION and GROUND PROTECTION.In comparing these tables, note that most utilities do not differentiate between phase and ground protectionin setting minimumcoordination time.
PHASE PROTECTION

FOLLOWINGAN OUTAGE OF
0 to 15 minutes

PERCENTOFRESPONSES
5%
19%

15 to 30 minutes

30 to 45 minutes
45 to 60 minutes

14%

33%
29%

longer than 60 minutes

Residential load clearly dominates the CLPU problem, with commercial load a distant second. When CLPU problems occur, 77 utilities said they sectionalizeto pick up less load. This solution was cited by more than twice the number who reset relays or block tripping. Only 9% of those reporting CLPU problems have attempted to measure cold load currents (magnitude and duration). Of those, using a clamp-on ammeter or station metering is the most common, with SCADA and recording ammeters also used. Compared to the last survey, more utilities are reporting CLPU problems. When they do occur, the trend is away from disabling tripping and more heavily into sectionalizing and increased relay settings. Maqnetizina Inrush Only 15% of the respondents report magnetizing inrush problems which cause feeder tripping. This is essentially unchanged from the last survey. Less than half o f those "yes" responses stated this is a recurring problem. The problem was cited on residential 15kV and 25kV circuits most frequently, followed by industrial and commercial 15kV and 25kV circuits. Raising the phase or ground instantaneous overcurrent setting is the most common solution. A few utilities are installing harmonic restraint instantaneousovercurrent relays (phaseand ground), and a few others are adding time delay to the instantaneous overcurrent relays. SECTION 8 SYSTEM OPERATIONS Overvoltaae Six respondents indicated they had experienced sustained overvoltages due to neutral shift on multi-grounded systems. Three of these indicated the result was damage to customer equipment.

FeederDevice
Electromech. Relays

Sdid State

Electronic Reclosers

iv
<5
9 5-10
I I

Number of Responses

Minimum CoordinationTime in Cycles

11 - 2 0
I

21 -30
I

31 - 4 0
I

>40

21

3 5

20

Fused Cutouts Most utilities use fused cutouts with ratings sufficient to handle available fault currents on their distribution system. At 5kV, only 11% (6 of 56 utilities) use under-rated

184

cutouts; at 15kV, 20% (17 of 85);at 25kV, 5% (2 of 41); and at 35kV, 3% (1 Of 34). Of those using under-rated fused cutouts, 5 of 18 respondents indicated unnecessary trips have occurred, but only 3 of these trips were reported at 15kV. Eight respondents indicated minimal damage at the point of the fault; 6 indicated moderate damage; 2 indicated no damage. At the cutout location, 9 reported no damage, 7 reported minimal damage, excessive damage was reported by 3, and moderate damage was reported by 2.
Current-Limitinq Fuses fCLFs) As shown in this table, a small number of the respondents use CLFs:

A number of techniques were cited to resolvethe problems that did occur:

change operating times in sectionalizer to coordinate with breaker reclosing use circuit reclosers on feeders with relayed breakers alter breaker reset times use electronic recloserswith synchronizer

Two utilities have not resolved their problems, and two utilities reported removing sectionalizers from service to resolve their problems. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents reported no problems with SHORT reset times of sectionalizersas relatedto reclosingcycles. These techniques were cited to resolve problems:

CURRENT-LIMITING FUSE USE Numberof ResDonses

use sectionalizers with 145 second reset time use electronic rather than hydraulic reclosers

I On UG tine Laterals

I 1 8

There has been a decrease from 76% in the number of utilities reporting the use of sectionalizerssince 1988 (now 63%), and only the percentage of electronic sectionalizers held its own.
Distance Relavs Only 10 percent (11 utilities) report finding it necessary to use distance relays on distributioncircuits. This is an increase from 6% reported in the 1988 survey. The following system requirements dictated their application:

Respondents were allowed to choose multiple answers for their reasons to use current-limiting fuses. Safety was cited by 53 utilities. High fault currents in excess of expulsion fuse interrupting ratings was the reason chosen by 32 respondents. The use CLFs to limit I2t let through was cited by 29. Locations requiring non-expulsion fuse types was the reason selected by 23, and 7 cited "Convenience." Fourteen (of 78) respondents reported coordinationor application problems in the use of CLFs. The types of problems reported varied, but several indicated coordination with upstream or downstream fuses as the problem. The resolution of the problem most often reported was to simply accept the miscoordination. When asked if CLFs are applied on the source side of Completely Self-Protecting (CSP) transformers, 27 respondents said "yes" and 32 answered "no." No one uses CLFs on the load side of these transformers. The reasons given for the use of CLFs on the source side of CSP transformers were predominantly to protect against catastrophic transformer failures.
Automatic Sectionalizers Sixty-threepercentof the respondents (67 utilities) apply sectionalizerson distributionfeeders. The survey listed four specific types plus "Other". Here are the responses:

feeder phase reactors left over from a looped system fault current comparableto load current long 35 kV feeders with sectionalizer ties long, multi-looped34 kV systems with generation very heavily loaded 34.5 kV circuits Five utilities use distance relays for torque controlling overcurrent relays. Two utilities use distance relays for faster clearing, with the time overcurrentrelay operatingas independent backup. One utility uses distance relays to allow higher load capability. While another uses them for phase protection, with overcurrent relays for ground protection. The following distance relays and schemes were reported: three-phase,two or three zones three-phase,one zone (three utilities) phase and ground multi-zone single-phase, two or three zones
Transfer Buses Forty percent of the respondents (43 utilities) reported the use of a separate transfer bus within distribution substation switchgear. Of the fifty percent which reported not installing a transfer bus, these alternativeswere described:

Electronic three-phase Hydraulic single-phase Hydraulic three-phase Dry-type single-phase Other * Total responses:

43 responses 38 26 13 4 124 from 67 utilities

In the "Other" category, one utility uses single-phase hydraulic sectionalizers on 5kV feeders and three-phase electronic sectionalizers on 25kV feeders. Another utility uses single-phase electronic dry type sectionalizers. Two utilities use single-phase electronic sectionalizers. In addition, one utility is evaluating cut-out-door type sectionalizers. Twenty-eight percent reported no use of automatic sectionalizers. Fifty-two percent of the respondents reported no problems with LONG reset times of sectionalizers as related to reclosing cycles.

use field switching to bypass feeder breakers breaker bypass onto main bus use mobile subs or transformers vacuum switchgear with bypass breakers use single or double synchronizing bus design use line disconnect to tie lines together at substation Forty-one percent (44 utilities) have the transfer bus or altemate bus arranged so that it can be tied to any feeder. To protect the transfer bus, a number of different primary protective devices are used:
25 incorporatedwith another feeder 22 independent relayed interrupting devices
6 incorporatedwith transformer overload protection 3 dedicated to specific feeder 1 fuses

185

Forty-nine percent of the respondents require manual operation to activate switching. Many switching schemes were reported, most using manual disconnects. A few reported the use of SCADA. One utility uses automatic load transfer for bus or bank differential. Another utility uses a 5-second delayed load transfer when loss of potential occurs. In summary, there has been a decrease in the use of separate transfer buses since 1988, down from 55% to 41%. The use of SCADA to activate switching has begun to occur. Differential Relavs Eight-two percent (88 utilities) reported the use of transformer differential schemes in distribution substations. The number of utilities installing these schemes were reported by category:
TRANSFORMER DIFFERENTIAL RELAY CRITERIA
secondary voltage level

Respondents indicated that the use of differential relays was dependent on the following criteria:
20 % importance of station required for new stations 20 % incoming voltage 15 %

Other criteria cited were: more than one transformer at a station type of feeder switchgear size of transformers parallel feeders Backup Relaving Local backup relaying that covers 100% of the feeder breakers is more common at 25 and 35 kV. On average, over W4 of feeders are covered by local backup relaying:

USELOCALBACKUPRELAYS

5kV 27% 79%

15kV

25kV 46%
93%

35kV 45%
06%

reporting100%coverage
percent o f feeders, average

33%
70%

use minimumtransformersize

indude secondary bus Minimum transformer size warranting differential schemes ranged from 5 MVA to 50 MVA, with most 10 MVA to 15 MVA. Respondents indicated that installation was dependent on the following criteria: importance of station incoming voltage required for new stations Other criteria cited were: more than one transformer at a station reach of adjacent line relaying selectivity of fuses type of feeder switchgear number of feeders existence of high-side switching device existence of sudden pressure relay The percentage of utilities reporting the use of transformer differential schemes is almost unchanged since 1988. Forty-four percent (47 utilities) reported the use of separate secondary bus differential schemes in distribution substations. The questionnaire asked utilities to name all of the following which applied:
BUS DIFFERENTIAL RELAY CRITERIA
5 kV 15 kV

The percentages of responding companies using a type of backup relaying is: transformer neutral overcurrent relaying 46% transformer low voltage overcurrent relaying 44% transformer high voltage overcurrent relaying 42% transformer distance relaying 3% Other types listed in the responses were: transformer high voltage fuse bus overcurrent partial bus differential overlapping zones fault bus relaying backup (redundant) feeder relays bus tie overcurrent high voltage circuit switchers The percentageof utilities reporting the use of local backup relaying for feeders is almost unchanged since 1988. Breaker Failure Protection Only seventeen percent (18 utilities) reported using "breaker failure" protection on distribution feeders. The 18 utilities reported these percentages of feeders having breaker failure protection, by voltage class:

32 % 26 % 26 Yo

25 kV

35 kV

BREAKER FAILURE PROTECITON

number of utilities reporting percent o f feeders The breaker failure schemes which were described included:
9 1 7

distribution voltage level

metalclad switchgear

open outdoor bus

use minimumtmsfoner size
use minimumno. of feeders

instantaneous relav
time overcumnt relay

27

voltage class

46

fault detectors timers separate dc supply tripping bus differential lockout annunciator only The percentage of utilities reporting the use of breaker failure relaying for feeder breakers is almost unchanged since 1988.

33

186

Field Test DistributionTransformers-Thirty percent (32 utilities) reported they test distribution transformers in the field when there is evidence of an external fault. SECTION 9 EFFECT OF DISPERSED SOURCES OF GENERATION (DSG)

may be connected to a feeder.

Effects on Protectionof the Feeder The most common changes on protection were:

For the first time, utilitieswere asked about the effect DSG has had on the protection practices for distribution circuits.
Statistics About Presence of DSG The section of the survey on DSG effects was completed by 100 of 107 total survey respondents. A majority of those responding (75 of 100) have DSG on their systems; 25 have no DSG. Of the 100, 28 utilities stated they have DSG installations at several voltage levels. In response to the question, "Do you have DSG on your distribution feeders?", there were 115 "yes" and 95 "no" answers from the 100 respondents, indicating multiple replies from many utilities.

1) 2) 3) 4)

Revised reclosing practices Revised coordination of feeders Added voltage relays Added transfer trip

36 responses 28 24 24

Chanqes to Reclosing and Sectionalizinq Practices Of the thirty-six respondents that have revised their reclosing practices, the primary changes were:

1) 2) 3) 4)

Extend reclose time 15 responses Reclose to dead feeder only 10 Add live budlive line sync check reclosing 5 Reduce the number of reclosing cycles 4

There was a wide dispersion of data regarding total capacity, number of installations, largest installations and maximum allowable MVA size. Each of these data items was classified by voltage class. Not all utilities provided data in every area. For example, only 53 utilities provided the following data on total DSG capacity:

Reclosing changes were generally to lengthen the "open" interval($, to reduce the number of reclosures on circuits with DSG, and to add voltage andlor sync check supervision in the reclosing scheme. The changes to sectionalizing devices were primarily to eliminate the possibility of single-phase interruptions between the DSG and the substation. This included removing fuses and other singlephase devices.
Fault Current Contribution From the DSG The phase fault current contribution from the DSG is primarily determined by transformer impedance and generator reactance, according to survey responses. Reactors were rarely used.

I
0-2

TOTAL DSG CAPACITY

Total Capacity (MVA)

I
25 kV
3 3

5 kV 5 2

15 kV

35kV
2

7
6 12 8
3

2-5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 50

1 2 1
1

1
0

1
3

Ground fault current is primarily determined by the transformer impedance (70%). Neutral reactors or neutral resistors were used by 13% of respondents and mainly in 15 kV systems. Fault current contribution from induction generators is included in fault current calculations by 16% of the survey respondents.
~

1
1 0 9 1

50 - UD
Total # Responses

8 44

1 12

10

Mean Total DSG Capacity (MVA)

3.8

26.9

29.5

46.8

Load Unbalance Allowable The majority of respondents (70%) permit 25% or less load unbalance with a DSG. This changed very little from the data without a DSG. Thus, the presence of a DSG did not materially affect the permissible load unbalance. Recommended Transformer Connections An equal number of respondents required grounded wye versus delta utility side transformer connections. Approximately 90% of all responses utilized these two connections. Ferroresonance Problems Only three of the survey responses indicated possible ferroresonanceor unexplainedinsulation failures on lines equipped with DSG. Sixty-seven respondents indicated no problems had been encountered. REFERENCES

In the survey, 822 DSG installations were reported on the 100 survey respondents' systems. The vast majority of DSG installations were on 15kV distribution systems (631 of 822), as seen in this table:

Distribution Line Protection Practices Industry Survey Analysis, IEEE PSRC Committee Report, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No. 10, October 1983, pp 3279 - 3287.
~

Total # InstallaCons
Mean Installed Size (MVA)

59 .44

631 3.5

65

67
5.4

3.7

Distribution Line Protection Practices - Industry Survey Results, IEEE PSRC Committee Report, IEEE Transactions on Power Delively, Vol. 3, No. 2, April 1988, pp 514 - 524.