Evaluation of Fault Protection Methods

using ATP and MathCAD

Louis V. Dusang, Jr., Brian K. Johnson, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractThis paper discusses combining the Alternative
Transients Program (ATP) and MathCAD to teach protective
relaying and to develop relay algorithms. A power system model
is created in ATP with appropriate current and voltage
measurements. The simulation output is converted to a
COMTRADE format and imported into a detailed relay model
implemented in MathCAD. The MathCAD model performs
digital filtering calculations, symmetrical components
calculations and models relay algorithms based on relay
manufacturers published information. Focus here is on
differential and ground fault protection for the common two bus,
parallel line case. Emphasis is placed on fault detection and
localization methods for ungrounded or high impedance
grounded systems.

Index TermsDigital simulation, power systems protection,
ungrounded power systems
I. INTRODUCTION
With fast responding modern protective relaying schemes it
is increasingly important to test them using transient
waveforms rather than using steady-state solutions from fault
programs [1]-[6]. One option is to use COMTRADE files
captured from field data, but this is limited only to events that
have actually occurred. Another option is to use transient
simulation to generate a more comprehensive set of test cases
and then play these waveforms to relays as COMTRADE files
[1], [7].
The same approach should also be used when training
engineers and engineering students to set and test protective
relays. Understanding the operation and performance of
microprocessor based relays requires new engineering tools.
The challenge educators face when preparing the next
generation of protection engineers and relay designers is to
teach both the analysis tools and the fundamental concepts of
very complex relay systems and devices [8], [9]. This can
also be used in developing new protection algorithms. One
does not necessarily need to use commercial relays in an
educational environment, and the development of new
algorithms precludes use of commercial relays. One option is
to implement a model of the relay algorithm directly in the
transient simulation tool [2]-[10]. This has the advantage of
allowing

_____________________________

Louis Dusang is with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, MS
39567 USA (phone: 228-935-2451; email: louis.dusang@ngc.com)
B. K. Johnson is with the Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering at
the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844 USA (phone: 208-885-6902;
email: b.k.johnson@ieee.org).
closed loop testing. However, developing a complete model,
including anti-aliasing filters, cosine filters, and symmetrical
components calculations can be challenging. Some transient
simulation tools have built-in relay models that can help for
this purpose, but are not comprehensive.
In cases where closed loop testing of relays is not required
another option to implement a relay model in a general
purpose mathematical tool such as MATLAB or MathCAD
[11], [12]. These programs are more suited to implementing
complex digital filtering algorithms and relay algorithms.
However, they have limited ability to close the loop and open
simulated breakers in the transient simulation. These
programs are able to import data produced by other programs.
This paper will utilize relay models implemented in
MathCAD that import COMTRADE files generated from the
output of an ATP [13] simulation using ATP Analyzer. The
relay models implemented are based on protective algorithm
information published by relay manufacturers. The
approaches used in this paper have been used in several
university level courses to allow distance education students
to perform protective relaying labs that on campus students
are able to conduct using hardware.
COMTRADE (Common Format for Transient Data) is an
IEEE standard (C37.111) developed for the power industry to
allow easier exchange of event data between devices from
different manufacturers both for post event analysis and for
equipment testing.
The ATP plotting function processes PL4 output files.
Each COMTRADE file consists of three text files
(assuming that you created the COMTRADE files in one of
the standard text formats):
1. DAT - contains the numerical data
2. CFG - configuration information cross-referencing
variables stored in DAT file
3. HDR - information about how the file was
created.
We are interested in reading both the *.CFG and *.DAT
files into MathCAD. The *.CFG file will be read into a
MathCAD array called config and the *.DAT file into an
array called data.
ATP Analyzer was developed by BPA to make it easier for
protection engineers to use ATP simulations (the development
of ATPDraw was also supported by BPA for the same reason).
When creating the file for use in MathCAD, the analog and
digital signals need to be in the order you establish in your
MathCAD file as you read the data into the file. Progressing
through the conversion process there is text box showing the
present sampling rate (in this case the ATP simulation time
2008 IEEE Electrical Power & Energy Conference
978-1-4244-2895-3/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE
step), replace this with 960 (this is 16 samples per 60 Hz
cycle). This is a fairly common sampling rate for commercial
protective relays and the MathCAD file is set up for this.
Selecting Low Pass Filter removes the need to add the filter in
MathCAD.
The data in a COMTRADE file has both scaling and offset
factors defined for them. This scales the measured data before
its operation in the relay model. The MathCAD file can pull
these numbers from the COMTRADE configuration file. By
not changing the scaling and offset factors, the generated
waveforms incur errors.
II. GROUNDING METHODS TO LIMIT GROUND FAULT
CURRENTS
The main goals of system grounding are to give assistance
in rapid detection and elimination of ground faults, minimize
voltage and thermal stresses on equipment, provide personnel
safety and reduce communication system interference [14]. In
some cases, an exception is made for systems supplying
critical processes or impacting personnel safety if the power
system shuts down. In these cases an ungrounded or high
resistance grounding scheme can be used. A phase-to-ground
fault does not result in large fault currents and, if loads are
connected phase-to-phase, can be tolerated until a clean
shutdown or reconfiguration can be performed.
Ground fault current magnitudes depend on the system
grounding methods. Because a single phase to ground fault in
ungrounded, high-impedance grounded and compensated
systems does not affect the phase to phase voltages, it is
possible to continue operating systems grounded in this
fashion with a single line to ground fault present. However
the system must have a phase-to-phase insulation level and all
loads must be connected phase-to-phase.
A. Ungrounded or Isolated Neutral System
In an ungrounded system the neutral has no intentional
connection to ground. However, because of the parasitic
distributed phase-to-ground capacitance, the neutral of an
ungrounded system may be considered to be grounded
through a capacitor connected between neutral and ground as
depicted in Fig. 1. The value of this capacitor will be equal to
sum of the phase-to-ground capacitances.

Fig. 1. Simplified Representation of an Ungrounded System
In this system, the two major factors limiting ground fault
current magnitude are the zero sequence line-to-ground
capacitance and fault resistance. A line-to-ground fault shifts
the system neutral voltage, but leaves the phase-to-phase
voltages intact as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig 2. Voltage phasor diagram for an ungrounded system
(a) Unfaulted system, (b) Solid phase A to ground fault
For a solid phase A to ground fault in an ideal lossless
system, the faulted phase and ground potentials are equal, as
shown in Fig 2. The phase-to-ground voltage of the two
remaining unfaulted phases equals the phase-to-phase voltage
(V
BG
= V
BA
, V
CG
= V
CA
) and the neutral-to-ground voltage
equals the negative of the source phase to neutral voltage
corresponding to the faulted phase (V
NG
= V
AN
). The phase-
to-phase voltages are not impacted, only the line-to-ground
and neutral-to-ground voltages. Thus continuity of service
can be achieved in the presence of a single line-to-ground fault
on this system if loads are connected phase-to-phase.
One important characteristic to be considered for an
ungrounded system is that this type of system is subject to
excessive overvoltages. Ungrounded neutral ac systems are
most commonly subject to overvoltages originating from
resonant effect of series LC circuits by a transient change in
voltage. Similarly, substantial overvoltages can be developed
in ungrounded ac systems by sputtering or intermittent ground
faults. In such faults the fault clears when the current through
arc passes through a natural current zero. Since the ground
current is capacitive, it is 90 degrees out of phase with the
voltage. This results in trapped charge on the neutral to
ground parasitic capacitance. At the next half cycle it can arc
again, adding additional voltage to the capacitance at the next
current zero. This will cause the neutral-to-ground, and thus
the phase-to-ground, voltages to build up over time.
Intermittent ground fault conditions on low voltage
ungrounded neutral systems have quite often been observed to
create overvoltages of five or six times normal. These
overvoltages will deteriorate the insulation of the unfaulted
phases and might lead to a second ground fault or a phase-to-
phase fault. The second ground fault will involve large fault
currents and will require instantaneous tripping of breakers.
B. High Resistance Grounded System
The high resistance grounded neutral system is one in
which a large resistance has been inserted in the neutral
connection to ground to limit the neutral current under ground
fault conditions to a value not less than the system charging
current. The grounding resistor may be connected in the
neutral of a power or grounding transformer, generator or
generator grounding bus, or across a broken delta connection
of distribution transformer secondary. Similar to the
ungrounded system, ground faults on these systems shift the
system neutral voltage without modifying the phase to phase
voltages. Hence the system need not be disconnected at the
occurrence of the first phase to ground fault.
An advantage of the high resistance grounded system is
that the potential line-to-ground overvoltage hazard associated
with the ungrounded system is greatly reduced. This is
because the distributed line-to-ground capacitance is bypassed
by the neutral to ground high resistance connection so the
neutral current is closer to being in phase with the voltage and
providing a path to bleed off the trapped charge. The
resistance also creates an overdamped response to transient
variations.
III. RELAY PROTECTION OVERVIEW
A single digital relay may consist of many protection
elements, see Table I.
TABLE I
ELEMENT LEGEND
Elements Description
27 Phase Undervoltage: A-, B-, or C-Phase
59 Phase Overvoltage: A-, B-, or C-Phase
81 Under- and Overfrequency
25 Synchronism Check
59N Zero-Sequence Overvoltage
67P Directional Phase Overcurrent
50P Nondirectional Phase Overcurrent
32R Reverse Underpower
32F Forward Overpower
87 Phase Current Differential
67N Directional Ground Overcurrent
50N Nondirectional Ground Overcurrent
The power element (32), undervoltage (27) and
overvoltage (59) element, and underfrequency element (81)
are all based on a time delay scheme with no fault location
tripping selectivity (Table I). These elements are intended for
generator protection. Reverse power protection uses a time
delayed function to prevent a generator from acting as a motor
on the system.
The synchronism element (25) provides added protection
by preventing the closing of any breaker and connecting two
systems that are out of phase. To allow breaker closing when
power is only on one side of the breaker, a relay includes a
dead-bus feature that bypasses the synchronism check
element. Unlike with the previously described elements, a
line-to-line voltage helps prevent a ground fault from affecting
proper synchronism check element operation in an
ungrounded system.
A. Differential and Directional Protection
The primary protection used for protection of very short
transmission lines is line current differential (87). Line
current differential protection is ideal because the current
differential element zone of protection is the connection
between the two relays associated with a line and a high speed
communications link.
Fig. 3 shows a typical line current differential scheme
applied to a line.
Relay 2
87LA 87LB 87LC
87LG 87L2
Relay 1
Ia, Ib, Ic
87LC 87LB 87LA
87LG 87L2

Fig. 3. Typical Line Current Differential Scheme
Each relay exchanges time-synchronized I
a
, I
b
, and I
c

current samples with the other. Current differential elements
compare I
a
, I
b
, I
c
, 3I
2
, and 3I
0
(I
G
) currents from each line
terminal. If a fault condition exists between the two relays,
the line is isolated.
Line current differential elements require an extensive
communications channel between the two relays protecting
the line since the sampled current waveforms need to be
transferred. If the communications channel fails, the line
current differential protection is disabled. The
communications channel signal integrity checking is an
automatic function within each relay.
Directional overcurrent elements (67) determine if a fault
exists on a line. The 67P element only detects multiphase
faults, while the 67N element detects phase-ground faults.
Both elements are necessary to detect all fault types because
of the difference in pickup and sensitivity levels. The 67P
elements operate from phase currents and the 67N elements
operate from the current delivered by the core-flux summing
current transformers or a CT in the neutral path. Depending
on the power system, directional overcurrent elements are
only enabled to trip when the current differential
communications channel fails.
B. Zero Sequence Detection
The positive, negative and zero sequence networks are
connected in series while evaluating single line-to-ground
faults as shown to Fig. 4. The zero sequence impedance of an
ungrounded and a high resistance grounded system has a very
high magnitude compared to the positive and negative
sequence impedance. Considering this high value one can
ignore the positive and negative sequence impedance without
significant loss of accuracy while evaluating single line-to-
ground faults.
3ZF
Relay R
Z1S Z1R m Z1L (1-m) Z1L
Relay S
I1S
I1R
Relay R
Z2S Z2R m Z2L (1-m) Z2L
Relay S
I2S I2R
Relay R
Z0R m Z0L (1-m) Z0L
Relay S
I
0S
I
0R
Z0S
XC
0S
2
XC
0S
2
_
+
V2F

Fig. 4. Connection of Sequence Networks for a Single Line-to-Ground fault
A solid single phase A to ground fault in the forward
direction can be represented the circuit in Fig. 1 by closing
switch S
F
. The zero sequence representation for this forward
ground fault is shown in Fig. 5a. The primary current I
0
is
flowing in at the CT polarity mark. A ground fault in the
reverse direction can be implemented by closing switch S
R
of
Fig. 1, with its zero sequence representation in Fig. 5b. The
primary current I
0
is not flowing in at the CT polarity mark.
Z
0L
XC
0S
XC
0L V
0 I
0
Relay

(a) Forward fault direction

(b) Reverse fault direction
Fig. 5. Zero Sequence Representation
IV. POWER SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Providing a reliable system is an important objective for
many commercial, industrial, and even residential
environments. One way to increase reliability is utilizing an
ungrounded system or a high resistance grounded system.
Since the majority of faults are single line-to-ground faults,
especially on overhead systems. Ungrounded system can
continue to supply the end user power under ground fault
conditions; hence, for the purpose of this paper an ungrounded
or high resistance ground power system is utilized.
Fig. 6 is a common multi-source power system typically
used to explain various components of a power system i.e.
relay protection. With the below figure one can explain power
system stability, distance protection, forward and reverse
direction of current as seen by each relay, differential
protection, etc. However, this paper will limit the protection
discussion to current differential and directional ground fault
protection.

Fig. 6. Power System Configuration
Differential protection is more or less the same regardless
of power system design. However, ground fault protection
including zero-sequence components depends on the
grounding scheme used. In this case, directional schemes for
ungrounded and high resistance grounded power systems are
explained.
V. ATP MODELING
ATP is a useful tool for evaluating power systems.
MathCAD is a helpful tool for analyzing relays. By combing
the two software programs, relay functionality can be taught
and better understood in universities in a practical sense.
A power system is developed using ATP. ATP Analyzer
produces a COMTRADE file from the ATP simulation output,
which is input as a data file into MathCAD. Relay algorithms
are developed in MathCAD. MathCAD takes data read from a
COMTRADE file and postprocesses it. The COMTRADE
configuration file format is such that the first row states how
the file was created and the version of the standard, the second
row gives the total number of inputs i.e. 18 - number of analog
inputs (12) and number of digital inputs (6). Rows 3 - 21 are
input in an order of choice. Data is sampled 16 times per
cycle or 960 hertz. Columns 0 and 1 of the COMTRADE file
do not store data, so Column 2 is the first one of interest.
This system is modeled as an ungrounded power system
utilizing ideal sources and employs high resistance to ground,
Fig. 7a. The system in Fig. 7b is similar to system in Fig. 7a.
However, to better represent the power system being analyzed
a transformer is added. The transformer adds source
impedance to the system. In this case the transformer is
modeled as a delta-delta. To improve numerical performance
of the simulation it is necessary to add either a very small
capacitance to ground (a few picofarads) or a very large
resistance (tens of Mohms) to ground. These values should be
chosen such that the current they carry does not impact the
circuit, while at the same time providing a suitable ground
reference.
EMTP-like programs such as ATP use nodal admittance
matrix methods that work best if circuits have a reference to
ground. The floating voltage sources in Fig. 7a and Fig. 7b
use an internal, ideal transformer to create a floating source.
The transformer used has some potential to create numerical
stability programs. To improve this, grounded sources are
connected behind the transformer, which is connected
Relay4
VS
SB
FAULT
Relay1 Relay2
LCC LCC
VR
SA
SC
RB
RC
RA Relay3
LCC LCC

(a) Ideal Source
Relay4
VS
SB
FAULT
Relay1 Relay2
LCC LCC
VR
SA
SC
RB
RC
RA Relay3
LCC LCC

(b) Ideal Source with Delta-Delta Transformer
VS
Source 1
Source 2
LCC
Relay 4
V
P S
Line 1
LCC
Relay 1
VR
Relay 2
P S
V
Relay 3
P S
Gnd Res
Line 2
LCC
FAULT
LCC
P S
P S
P S
Gnd Res

(c) High Resistance Ground with Wye-Wye Transformer
Fig. 7. ATP Power System Configurations

grounded wye to ungrounded wye (it could also be delta
connected on the side facing the power system of test. This
creates an appropriate ungrounded source. The parasitic
capacitances represented in cable models provide the ground
path that fault current would flow through. Fig. 7c shows a
system with a grounding transformer added to create a high
resistance ground. This is a common way to create a high
resistance to ground point in an ungrounded system.
The orientation depicted in Fig. 8 reflects that shown in
Fig. 3. Note that I2 current flow can be in same direction as
I1. In this case the direction change needs to be
accommodated in the MathCAD file. This may seem
intuitively obvious, but you remember you are creating and
debugging two models.
FAULT
I1 I2

Fig. 8. ATP Current Flow
VI. MATHCAD MODELING
Fig. 9 depicts an oversimplified rendition of differential
protection (analyzing each phase for a difference in current via
OR logic) in which the line currents (87A, 87B and 87C) are
calculated internal to the relay in a manner the manufacturer
utilizes. For current differential protection if B-phase and C-
phase have no differential current flow, but current flows
through the differential relay in A-phase the differential relay
will assert if the value exceeds the pickup setting.


Fig. 9. Simplified Differential Fault Protection Logic
Equation (1) represents Fig. 9 in MathCAD.
Tr_s1
v
1 Is1_OPA
v
s1_1 Is1_RTA
v
>
( )
Is1_OPA
v
Imin >
( )
if
1 Is1_OPB
v
s1_1 Is1_RTB
v
>
( )
Is1_OPB
v
Imin >
( )
if
1 Is1_OPC
v
s1_1 Is1_RTC
v
>
( )
Is1_OPC
v
Imin >
( )
if
1 Tr_s1
v 1
0.01 > if
0 otherwise
:=
(1)
Fig. 10 is a differential relay Operate / Restraint curve
generated in MathCAD.
0 2 4 6
0
2
4
6
6
0
s_1 I
.axis
( )
6 0 I
.axis

(a) Percentage Characteristic (b) MathCAD version
Fig. 10. Differential Relay Operate Curve
Ground fault algorithms while more complicated are
generated similar to the differential element. Ground fault
consists of overcurrent and directional elements. Fig. 11 is a
simple representation of ground fault sensing logic.


Fig. 11. Simplified Ground Fault Logic
Utilizing an SEL relay that incorporates a doubled-ended,
zero-sequence impedance element that vectorially adds the
two zero-sequence current measurements, using the
communications link between two relays, to produce twice the
total zero-sequence line current.
To quantify this algorithm we construct Equation 2.

| |
2
0
*
0 0 0
0
3
) _ 1 3 ( 3 Re
I
Ang ZL I V
Z
T

=
(2)
where:
3V
0
= Summation of phase voltages (V
A
+ V
B
+
V
C
)
3I
0
= Summation of phase currents (I
A
+ I
B
+ I
C
)
ZL
0
_Ang = Zero-sequence line-impedance angle
Re = Real operator
* = Complex conjugate
Equation (3) represents Equation (2) in MathCAD. To
avoid division by 0 add a 0.00001 constant to the
denominator.

Z0A_r1
v
Re VA0_r1
v
IA0_r1
v
1 e
j Z1ANG

( )

\
|
|

(
(

IA0_r1
v
( )
2
.00001 +
:=
(3)
Fig. 12 produces a forward/reverse fault impedance plane.
If the resulting impedance calculation is below the forward
threshold (and all of the supervisory conditionals are met), the
fault is declared forward. Conversely, if the impedance is
above the reverse threshold, the fault is declared reverse.
Zero-Sequence
Impedance Plane X
0
R
0
Reverse Fault
Forward Fault
3V
0
3I0 (Forward Fault)
3I0 (Reverse Fault)

(a) Zero-Seq. Phasors (b) Impedance-Plane Directional
Element Characteristics
Fig. 12. Ground Directional Element Characteristics
Similarly, Fig. 13 is a MathCAD produced forward/reverse
fault impedance plane showing the relationship between 3V
0

and 3I
0
for forward and reverse faults. Positive Z
0T
indicates a
forward fault as indicated in Fig. 13a. Negative Z
0T
indicates
a reverse fault as indicated in Fig. 13b.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3000
2000
1000
0
1000
VA0_r1
v
IA0_r1
v
Z0A_r1
v
Z0A_r2
v
v
RS

(a) In-line section
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
VA0_r3
v
IA0_r3
v
Z0A_r3
v
Z0A_r4
v
v
RS

(b) Out-of-section
Fig. 13. Ground Directional Decision
As mentioned above relay manufacturers use their own
algorithms for relay protection elements. As such, our relay
model utilizes the 32 element in Equations (4)-(6), which
represents the ground directional protection of an SEL relay,
which utilizes the 32 element. The 50 element is essentially
the level equation enabled. Equation (4) consists of zero-
sequence algorithm resulting in Equation (6) equating to
Fig. 11.

F32G_r1
v
Z0A_r1
v
Z
0Forward

( )
IA0_r1
v
a
0
IA1_r1
v

( )
:=
(4)

Level1G_r1_pu
v
1 IA0_r1
v
Level_1_50G_r1 if
1 Level1G_r1_pu
v 1
0.01 if
0 otherwise
:=
(5)

TR67G_r1
v
T32G_r1
v
TR50G_r1
v
:=
(6)
VII. SIMULATION RESULTS
After modeling the power system in ATP, the generated a
COMTRADE file is incorporated into MathCAD to test the
relay algorithm. Fig. 14 shows differential element correctly
isolates fault by asserting both Relay 1 and Relay 2, only,
isolating two- and three-phase fault conditions on the faulted
line while leaving the unaffected line in tact. Additionally,
even though a ground phase may have been involved in both
the two- and three-phase faults i.e. double line-to-ground fault
the zero sequence algorithm remains low for all four relays
such that its associated element, 67N, did not pick-up.
0 10 20 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Tr_R1
v
Tr_R2
v
v
RS
0 10 20 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Tr_R3
v
Tr_R4
v
v
RS

(a) In-line section (b) Out-of section
Differential Element
0 10 20 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Ind_R1
v
Ind_R2
v
v
RS
0 10 20 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Ind_R3
v
Ind_R4
v
v
RS

(a) In-line section (b) Out-of section
Ground Directional Element
Fig. 14. Differential Protection Results
Likewise, Fig. 15 shows ground fault protection
appropriately indicates a single line-to-ground on the faulted
line. This is seen as a high signal on ground detection graph
and no state change for the unaffected line or an assert signal
by the differential protection graph.
0 10 20 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Tr_R1
v
Tr_R2
v
v
RS
0 10 20 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Tr_R3
v
Tr_R4
v
v
RS

(a) In-line section (b) Out-of section
Differential Element
0 10 20 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Ind_R1
v
Ind_R2
v
v
RS
0 10 20 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Ind_R3
v
Ind_R4
v
v
RS

(a) In-line section (b) Out-of section
Ground Directional Element
Fig. 15. Ground Directional Protection Results
All three ATP models in Fig. 7 resulted in identical fault
isolation responses for both differential and ground fault
protection. The difference is a setting change in MathCAD.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Using two different software packages to develop models
requires a thorough knowledge of relay principles. The
current flow direction in ATP affects the MathCAD results.
While this may be seem obvious, it is easy to include a
negative sign in MathCAD for direction as well.
A single line power system provides the concept of
differential and ground fault protection from a practical. In
doing so it teaches directional functionality. This becomes
more evident with the parallel line power system in that fault
isolation depends on relay settings. In other words, the
assertion of both relays in the single line system, does not
initially mean this occur for the parallel line system. Three
relays may assert, but this only means that the settings are
incorrect. The added benefit of the parallel is it use of explain
blocking schemes.
IX. REFERENCES
[1] M. Kezunovic, T. Popovic, D. Sevcik and H. DoCarmo, Transient
Testing of Protective Relays: Results Methodology and Tools,
International Conference on Power Systems Transients (IPST 2003),
New Orleans, Paper 5c-1, September 28November 2, 2003.
[2] B. W. Garret, Digital Simulation of Power System Protection under
Transient Conditions, Ph.D. thesis at the University of British
Columbia, 1987.
[3] R.E. Wilson and J.M. Nordstrom, EMTP Transient Modeling of a
Distance Relay and a comparison with EMTP Laboratory Testing,
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.8, No. 3, pp. 984992, July
1993.
[4] M.T. Glinkowski and J. Esztergalyos, Transient Modeling of
Electromechanical Relays: Part I, Armature Type Overcurrent Relay,
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 763770,
April 1996.
[5] M.T. Glinkowski and J. Esztergalyos, Transient Modeling of
Electromechanical Relays: Part II, Plunger Type 50 Relays, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 771782,
April 1996.
[6] C. Henville, A. Hielbert, R. Folkers and R Wierckx, Dynamic
Simulations Challenge Protection Performance, Proceedings of the
Western Protective Relay Conference, October 2003, [Online].
Available: http://www.selinc.com/techpprs/6156.pdf
[7] P.G. McLaren, R. Kuffel, R. Wierckx, J. Giesbrecht and L Ardent, A
Real Time Digital Simulator for Testing Relays, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, Volume 7, Number 1, pp. 207213, January 1992.
[8] C. Kim, M. Lee, R.K. Aggarwal, Educational Use of EMTP MODELS
for the Study of a Distance Relaying Algorithm for Protecting
Transmission Lines, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 15,
No. 1, pp. 915, February 2000.
[9] R.W. Wall and B.K. Johnson, Using TACS Functions Within EMTP to
Teach Protective Relaying Fundamentals, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 310, February 1997.
[10] J.N. Peterson and R.W. Wall, Interactive Relay Controlled Power
System Modeling, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6,
No. 1, pp. 96102, January 1991.
[11] MATLAB, The MathWorks, Inc., 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick MA
01760-2098 USA, http://www.mathworks.com/
[12] MATHCAD, MathSoft Inc., 101 Main Street, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 02142 USA, http://www.mathsoft.com
[13] H.W. Dommel, Digital computer solution of electromagnetic transients
in single-and multi-phase networks, IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-88, No. 4, pp. 388399, April 1969.
[14] J. Roberts, H.J. Altuve and D. Hou, "Review of ground fault protection
methods for grounded, ungrounded and compensated distribution
systems," presented at the 28th Annual Western Protective Relay Conf.,
Spokane, Washington, October 23-25, 2001. [Online]. Available:
http://www.selinc.com/techpprs/6123.pdf
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Louis Dusang received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering
degree from Mississippi State University in 1988 and is pursuing his MSEE at
the University of Idaho. He is a Registered Engineer in South Carolina. He
has been an electrical engineer with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding since
November 2001. He is the lead project engineer for LDA Power Systems.
Prior to joining NGSB, Mr. Dusang worked as both an electrical engineer and
controls engineer for Jacobs.

Brian K. Johnson (M92, SM2006) received the Ph.D. in Electrical
Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in August 1992. He is
currently an associate professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at
the University of Idaho. His interests include HVdc transmission, power
system protection, and the application of power electronics to utility systems
and realtime simulation of traffic systems.