IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 13, No.
2, April 1998
Design and Evaluation of a Circulating Current
Differential Relay Test System
P.A. Crossley, H.Y. Li
Manchester Centre for Electrical Energy
UMIST, Manchester, UK
Abstract:- This paper describes how an EMTP based
simulator can be used in conjunction with a relay test set to
type-test a protection relay operating within a circulating
current differential protection scheme. The combination of a
simulator and a test-set is designed to replace a high power
synthetic test plant that has been used for more than 30 years
for type and approval testing of differential protection relays.
The paper will include results that describe the operating
performance of the new test system, on both internal and
external faults, and these will be compared with experimental
results obtained from an identical set of tests on the synthetic
test plant.
Keywords:- Circulating current differential protection,
current transformer behaviour, digital modelling of current
transformers, differential protection test system, synthetic test
plant.
1. INTRODUCTION
A current differential protection relay derives an operating
signal that is based on the vector summation of the current
signals measured by current transformers located at the
extremities of the protected zone. If this signal, referred to as
the differential signal, exceeds an operating threshold the
relay concludes that a fault exists within its protected zone.
Depending on the type of differential protection, the relay will
then either trip all the circuit breakers that are required to
isolate the zone fi-om the network, or will trip a single breaker
and rely on other relays within the protection scheme to
isolate the zone. All differential protection schemes are
designed to detect and clear, in an acceptable time period, all
short-circuit faults that occur within its zone of protection, but
remain stable, or inoperative, during all load or external fault
conditions. These objectives can be difficult to achieve, since
the electro-magnetic Current Transformers (CTs) may be
non-linear during a fault. The non-linearity is associated with
the current required to excite or magnetise the CT core. The
excitation current depends on the magnitude of the flux
density within the core and the B-H characteristics of the core
PE-853-PWRD-2-06-1997 A paper recommended and approved by
the \€€E Power System Relaying Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery. Manuscript submitted December 27, 1996; made available
for printing June 11, 1997.
088.5-8977/98/$10.00 0 1997 IEEE
427
A.D. Parker
GEC ALSTHOM T&D
Stafford, UK
material. When considering a protection CT, the flux density
required to drive the normal load current and low values of
fault current through the relays connected to the CT is
normally well within the linear region of the B-H curve.
Consequently, the excitation current is small and the
secondary current is a scaled down replica of the primary
current. However, if the burden connected to a CT is
significant and the fault current is high and contains a dc
offset, then unless a large over-dimensioned CT has been
selected, the flux in the core will enter the saturated region of
the B-H curve. During the period when the flux is within this
region, the excitation current will be high and the secondary
current will be severely distorted.
Saturation of a CT resulting from a high current fault located
within the protected zone is unlikely to affect the operation of
the differential protection on this fault. The magnitude of the
differential current will be reduced but it will still exceed the
operating threshold by a large margin. The main problem
caused by an internal fault is the effect on the fbture stability
of the protection of the remanent flux left in the CT after the
internal fault has been cleared. Since the load current is
unlikely to reduce the remanent flux to a low value, the flux
in the core will continue to cycle around the remanent value,
using a minor B-H loop. This will continue until the next
high current fault occurs. Then, depending on the Point-On-
Wave (POW) at which the fault occurs, the remanent flux in
the core may either increase, driving the CT into deeper
saturation, or decrease, reducing or eliminating the level of
saturation. The former may cause a major problem for a
differential protection relay, if the second fault is located
outside the protected zone and one of the current transformers
has been left by a previous fault with a high value of
remanent flux, whilst the flux in the other CT or CTs is low.
The differential current, which should be zero for an external
fault, will now be non zero and may exceed the operating
threshold of the relay. In practise, differential relays maintain
their stability, even when a CT is saturated, by using a biased
operating characteristic or a stabilising resistor or a
combination of both, The limitation of these solutions is that
any increase in the stability of the protection results in a
decrease in the sensitivity.
When designing a new type of relay for use within a
differential protection scheme, it is necessary to confirm that
the protection when used with the recommended CTs, can
achieve a realistic level of stability on external faults, whilst
maintaining an acceptable level of sensitivity on internal
428
faults. Confirmation is often achieved by type-testing the
protection on a synthetic test plant that allows internal and
external faults to be applied to a high current analogue model
of the plant being protected. The test plant must include
actual current transformers and its power and voltage rating
must be sufficient to allow these CTs to be driven into
saturation when their secondaries are connected to the
protection scheme: With carem design, this type of test plant
can provide a high level of flexibility and a realistic level of
accuracy, but they are in general expensive to construct and
operate, physically large and the completion of a type test
program may involve many man-months or man-years of
effort.
During the last few years, there has been an increasing
interest in using transient simulators [l], such as EMTP, for
the type testing of protection relays [2,3]. The research
described in this paper will concentrate on how the EMTP
simulator can be used to evaluate a relay operating within a
circulating current differential protection scheme [4], In
addition to modelling the effect of a fault on the primary
system, the simulator also models the effect on the current
signals, that are injected into the relay, of directly connecting
multiple CTs into a single input circuit of a relay.
The results presented in this paper were obtained during an
experimental study designed to confirm whether an EMTP
based simulator operating with a “play-back” relay test set [ 5 ]
could be used to replace an existing synthetic test plant. The
design and implementation of the EMTP test system is
described in section 2. The operating performance of this
system, on both internal and external faults, is compared with
results obtained @om the Synthetic Test Plant (STP)
described in section 3.
2. CIRCUL DIFFERENTIAL
TEM
Figwe 1 describes a circulating current differential relay test
system based on the EMTP simulator and a play-back test set.
..............................................................................
EMTP Relay Test System Model
L Swl CT1 CT2
m /-
_“
mti0
r
.................................................................................
currents,I1 and 12, are played back to
high power current amplifiers
I &
Relay Testing
Fig. 1 Circulating current differential relay test set
The differential test system consists of an off-line simulator,
developed using EMTP, that models the effect of a power
system fault on a relay operating within a circulating current
differential protection scheme. The data describing the
current signals at the input(s) to the relay are replayed and
injected into the relay using a commercially available test set.
EMTP is used to model a three-phase “resistor-inductor”
element supplied by a 3-9 R-L Thevenin equivalent source.
The 3-9 source is earthed via a neutral impedance &,. The
results described in this paper are based on a single source as
shown in figure 1. However, EMTP can be used to model a
system with 3-9 source at each end of the protected resistor-
inductance element. All fault types can be modelled and the
faults can be located internal or external to the protected
element. The operating power ftequency, the power system X
and R values, the POW of fault initiation, the fault type and
location, and the parameters of the CTs are all variables in
the simulation models. Each CT consists of an ideal CT
model shunted with an Eh4TP Type 96 non-linear reactor
model. The CT turns ratio is represented as 1x1; RI and R2 are
the resistances of the leads between the relay and CTI and
CT2 respectively; &I, is a stabilising resistor which is used
in a high or medium impedance protection scheme, and &la,,
represents the burden of the input circuit of the relay. Since
the simulator described in this paper operates as a play-back
test set, the impedance of the input circuit of the actual relay
being tested must be measured. The relay used in the tests
described in this paper is a microprocessor based design with
an input impedance that is purely resistive and equal to 0.3Q.
The measured impedance (2&,,) is used by the simulator to
help determine the excitation current in each CT.
Once the parameters and conditions associated with a test
have been specified by the user, the simulation can proceed.
The output fkom the simulator, the data sets that contain the
currents at RI, R2 are then stored for k t u r e use. To test a
relay, the appropriate data sets are transferred to a relay test
set, replayed in real time and converted by the digital to
analogue converters into analogue current signals. These
signals are amplified and injected into the relay under test.
3. EVALUATION OF THE TEST SYSTEM
OPERATING PERFORMANGES
3.1 Synthetic Test Plant
This section describes the Synthetic Test Plant (STP) and the
signals generated when testing a circulating current
differential protection scheme under conditions of CT
saturation. The STP has been used by a major protection
manufacturer for type and approval testing of differential
relays for more than 30 years. It is designed to physically
model the effect of a short-circuit fault on a generator,
transformer, line or cable with an X / R of between 10 and 120.
The plant is capable of supplying an offset fault current signal
where the magnitude of the steady state primary current is up
to 800A. The tests performed on the STP were designed to
provide data to validate the accuracy of the EMTP based

simulator. Two 3-phase sets of CTs were used, each CT had a
1:lO turns ratio and a knee point voltage of 16OV. The CTs
were arranged to supply a differential relay with a stabilising
resistor. The primary and secondary connections of the STP
are shown in figure 2.
CT 1 CT2
I-test=I-sstI-tra--
Rh
1 A n
Fig.2 A diagram of the Synthetic Test Plant (STP)
In figure 2, the capacitor and dc supply were used to simulate
the dc transient seen in the current when a fault occurs on a
power system. The capacitor is charged by switching Swl to
the dc supply. When hlly charged, the capacitor is connected
via Swl to the “open” thyristor switch. The location of the
fault is selected using Sw2 or Sw3, the former is closed for an
internal fault and the latter for an external. When all the
preparatory stages have been completed, both thyristor
switches are closed at a Point-on-Wave defined by the
operator. The resulting fault current “It,*” contains both a
steady state 50Hz component “ 1 , ~and a dc offset “Ibm,”, and
is identical to that experienced when reclosing onto a fault on
an actual power network with the same parameters. A
differential protection relay was connected to the CTs as
shown in figure 2. Each phase input was connected in series
with an adjustable stabilising resistor, and together were then
connected via leads of adjustable resistance to the appropriate
phase of CT1 and CT2. The measured resistive relay burden
was 0.351, the burden of the non-inductive stabilising resistor
was adjustable between 0 and 50Q and the lead resistance to
CTl was 7.051 and to CT2 was 1.051. The current in the leads
connecting the relay to CT1 and CT2, and the diffaential
current flowing through the relay were measured by 0.1R
calibrated shunts, referred to as shunt-1, shunt-2 and shunt-3
respectively. Tests were performed with system X/Rratios of
between 10 and 120. These tests involved a sequence of
internal and external faults at pre-defined POWs. For
example, an internal fault with a maximum positive dc offset
in the current signal was followed by two external faults with
maximum positive dc offset and then two external faults with
maximum negative dc o e e t . The objective was to ensure that
the CTs experienced a reversal of the current offset when left
with a large value of remanence &om the previous faults.
The parameters for a typical example were an X/R ratio of 40,
a stabilising resistor of 1.751, an A-N fault type and a steady
429
state fault current of 10 times nominal (lOxI,,). Records of the
CT secondary waveforms, when subjected to the 4th and 5th
external fault at a POW of 270’ (maximum negative dc.
offsets) are shown in figures 3 and 4 respectively. The
magnetic history of each CT was determined by the previous
faults which were all applied at POWs of 90’.
TBK Stop: Singte Seq 1.00!&/5
1
5Junl B B 8
Ch3 Z.00V 15:ZO:OO
Fig.3 Record 1: 4th external fault shot at a POW of 270’ after
3 previous faults:- 1st internal fault at POW of 90°,and
2nd and 3rd external fault at the same POW of 90’)
Tek !Stop: Single Seq 1.00E/5
3
1888
:35
Fig.4Record 2: 5th external fault shot at a POW of 270’
[after 4 previous faults:- 1st internal fault at POW 90°,
2nd and 3rd external fault at POW 90°, and 4th
external fault shot at POW of 270’1
In figures 3 and 4, the 1st trace is the current measured by
shunt-1, the 2nd trace is the current measured by shunt-2 and
the 3rd trace is the differential current measured by shunt-3.
Since the shunts are 0.151, the current amplitude of 2ONdiv
is calculated fiom the oscilloscope resolution of 2V/div. The
oscilloscope time base is 50ms/div. When comparing the
current at in shunt-1 with the current in shunt-2, it can
clearly be seen that the former has a deepw level of CT
saturation than the latter. This is because the lead resistance
to CTl is larger (7.00) than to CT2 (1.OQ). If the relay
differential current (3rd trace) in figure 3 is compared with
the corresponding current in figure 4, it can be seen that the
differential current in figure 3 is significantly larger during
430

the second and third fault cycles. This is because the results in
figure 3 were obtained for a fault at a POW of 270°, after
three previous faults all at POWs of 90'; the results in figure
4 were obtained for a fault at a POW of 270' after four
previous bult, the last at 270' and the others at 90' .The
results in figure 3 show how the remanence in the CT
changes from a positive value to a negative value. The results
in figure 4 shows how the remanence increases in the
negative direction for repeated faults at the same POW. When
comparing the current in shunt-1 in figure 3 with that in
figure 4, it can seen that in figure 4 saturation starts almost
immediately after the fault occurs, whilst in figure 3
saturation is delayed for approximately 1 cycle. When
comparing the current in shunt-2 in figure 3 with that in
figure 4, it can again be seen that in figure 4 saturation starts
immediately after the fault occurs, whilst in figure 3
3.2.1 Low Impedance Scheme
The parameters for the low impedance scheme of relay testing
are the same as in section 3.1, i.e. the power system X/R is
40, the stabilising resistor is 1.7!2, the fault is A-N and the
steady state fault current is 10x1,. Figures 5 to 7 show both
the simulated and experimental differential currents obtained
during a sequence of three consecutive faults, the 1st was an
internal fault with a steady state cwrent magnitude of 10A
and full positive dc offset (POW = 90°), the 2nd and 3rd were
external faults with a steady state current magnitude of 10A
and full positive dc ofiet.
IFault Pkint of Wave a t i S O a

saturation is delayed for approximately 2 cycles. As expected,

this confirms that the POW at which the fault occurs affects
the output from a CT.

It can be seen in figure 3, that for the first 2 cycles after fault
occurrence the differential current is high since CT1 is
saturated and CT2 is unsaturated. M e r 2 cycles CT1 and
CT2 are both saturated, their currents are similar but
opposite, and consequently the magnitude of the differential
current is small.
Time. 40mS/div
The results in figure 4 were obtained when the 5th fault was
at a POW of 270', the same POW as the 4th fault. Fig.5 Comparison between simulated and experimental
Consequently the level of remanence in the CTs is small. The differential currents (1st internal fault shots at POW of
experimental results clearly demonstrate the effects on the 90')
remanence of multiple faults applied at different POWs.

3.2 EMTP Relay Test System Evaluations and Validations Fault eoint of [ W a v e a$ Q O a
\ hi
The circulating current differential protection relay test
system shown in figure 1 was implemented using the EMTP
simulator. The CTs were modelled using the CT models
available in the EMTP auxiliary program HYSDAT. This
requires the utilisation of the hysteresis and V-I curves [4].
Based on the V-I curves of the CTs used in the synthetic test
plant, a CT knee point voltage of 160V and an excitation
current of 0.56A were selected as the inputs to the HYSDAT
program. The hysteresis loop generated by the HYSDAT
SoL+3 Line: + Expe-ental Fesult

program was incorporated within the CT model.
The model was used to simulate the output m m t s &om CT1
and CT2 and the differential current under the same internal
and external fault conditions as investigated using the STP.
The resulting currents, I1 and I2 at RI and R2 were stored and
subsequently played back via a relay test set. The output from
the amplifiers in the test set were electrically connected
together and then connected to the relay, i.e. the differential
current is injected into the relay input circuit. The simulated
test system was used to evaluate low and high impedance
differential protection scheme. Typical examples of the
differential currents observed with both schemes are shown in
sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 respectively.
~ a & Line: - SimzLL&tion reSuLt
Time, 40mS/div
Fig.6 Comparison between simulated and experimental
differential currents (2nd consecutive external fault
shots at POW of 90')
In figures 5 to 7, the solid lines are the differential currents
obtained using the STP (experimental results), and the dash
lines are the differential current obtained using EMTP
(simulation results). Figure 5 shows the differential current
during the first internal fault shot (90'). In this case, only
CT1, was driven into saturation. When comparing the solid
line (experiment) with dash line (simulation), it can be seen
 43 1

that the simulation produces a larger differential current than
the experiment during the first cycle but a smaller differential
current on all subsequent cycles. When the currents from CT1
and CT2 are examined, it was found that the exciting current
in the simulated CT2 was higher than the equivalent current
observed with the STP. This can be explained by considering
the hysteresis loop of a CT in the STP as compared to the
EMTP CT. The EMTP CT has a lower gradient in the
unsaturated region than the STP CT. Consequently, for the
same exciting voltage more current will be diverted through
the exciting branch in the EMTP CT than that in the STP CT.
Fault eoint of ; W a v e at! 90'
.............................................................
.......\-.....
90' and the 4th was an external fault at a POW of 270'. The
differential current measured during the 3rd and 4th fault
shots are presented figures 8 and 9 respectively. Both figures
clearly show that close agreements exists between the
simulated and the experimental results. When comparing
figure 9 with 8, the reversal in the spill differential current
due to change in the POW of the fault is clearly evident.
Comparing the waveforms of the high impedance scheme in
figure 8 with the low impedance scheme in figure 7, it can be
seen that the differential current in figure 8 (2Ndiv) is
significantly smaller than in figure 7 (10Ndiv). The result
clearly demonstrates that the high impedance scheme
significantly reduces the magnitude of the differential current
during an external fault.

Fault goint of ; W a v e at; 90

0 :

......... ............ .:. ............. .:... ........... .1. ..............

P

1
a
d
4- bw
..................................................................... 5
Solad Lane:- Expe-ental PesuLt
D+ Line:- SimzLL4tion re&Lt
5
U

1
...........................................................................
Sodad Line.. E z p e d h e n t a L resuLt
Time, 40mS/div
ash Line: -i Si-&,ticn re-tt
Fig.7 Comparison between simulated and experimental
differential currents for low impedance scheme (3rd T i m e , 40mS/div
consecutive external fault shots at POW of 90')
Fig.8 Comparison between simulated and experimental
Figure 6 presents a comparison between the differential differential currents for high impedance scheme (3rd
current obtained fkom the STP and the EMTP based consecutive external fault shots at POW of 90')
simulator. The results are obtained for the 2nd consecutive
external fault at a POW of 90'. Figure 7 shows the currents
during the third consecutive external fault at a POW of 90'. S O L ~ O ?Line:-
~ $xperirnjentaL .rdsuLt
When comparing figure 6 with figure 7, it is clearly shown Dash il<n.e:- $<muLat&n - r e s u i t
that the differential currents are not the same even under the ............'...............................................................
same fault conditions. These results clearly demonstrate that
the differential current can be severely affected by CT
remanence caused by either a previous internal fault or an
external fault. When comparing the simulation results with
the experimental results, it is evident that close agreement
exists between the results. These results help confirm the
validity of using EMTP in a current differential relay test I i
system. Minor differences in amplitude and waveshape still Fault :Point of W a v e it 270'
exist. These are due to the difference in the core materials
available with EMTP as compared to the actual core material T i m e , 40mS/div
used in the CTs in the synthetic test plant.
Fig.9 Comparison between simulated and experimental
3.2.2 High Impedance Scheme differential currents for high impedance scheme (4th
consecutive external fault shots at POW of 270')
The parameters for the high impedance scheme are the same
as the low impedance scheme except the stabilising resistor is 3.3. Effect of varying the power system parameters
changed &om 1.7a to 50Q. The simulated and experimental
differential currents were measured during a sequence of four The EMTP based current differential relay test system has
consecutive fault shots. The 1st was an internal fault at a been evaluated under a wide range of realistic but onerous
POW of 90°, the 2nd and 3rd were external faults at POWs of fault conditions with different X and R system values. A
432

selection of the results obtained are included in this sub- I I&t shot pekiod. .
:
.
2ndj elsot keriodl
section and the conditions under which the tests were
performed are summarised in Table 1. In all cases the
remanence in both CTs was zero prior to the start of each two C l
fault test sequence. In all cases both faults were applied at the G
1
same POW and at the same location. For each simulated 3
dr
example, the currents flowing out of CTl (signal-1) and CT2 +-
El
(signal-2) and the relay differential current signals were E2
measured and plotted on a single graph. The results for the 2 1 ..___; .
. .......,...........
............. L
: : .....,......
.. - . : : ............. ~1-'1
: ; ...........
. . ... ... ... ... .. . .. ..
G L

test cases are discussed as follows:- . . . ..

.............

Table 1 Relay testing conditions 3

I Test. I Fault I P-0-W I WR I If .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Time. 4Oms/div

Fig. 11 Test 2:- Currents associated with two consecutive A-N

external faults at POWS of 90'. (X/R=30,&ab =on)

Test 3:- same condition as test 1 except the stabilising

Key:- Ext. = External A-phase-earth fault resistor is 2.8 ohms. Figure 12 shows that due to this change,
Int. = Internal A phase-earth fault the magnitude of the differential current is reduced.
If = fault current (multiples of nominal current)
&ab = stabilising resistance
CT turns ratio of 1:10,
CT lead resistor of RI=l.OR, R2=0.0R
Relay burden=O.3a.

Test 1:- an external fault is applied to a power system with an

X/R of 10 and the relay stabilising resistance is 0.0 ohms.
Figure 10 shows that during the 1st fault there are two cycles
delay before CT1 starts to saturate and the differential
current, 1-U becomes finite. During the 2nd fault, I.@ is
much great& due to the large remanent flux existing in the
CTs after the 1st fault.

sw .
l & t&IQ*
. . . I .......End
. p&-io& . shot . berjod
.................................
. . Time, 4 C O m e / d i v
, I : : j Swlj ofj ~. w. i : .o n. : I . :.
Fig.12 Test 3:- Currents associated with two consecutive A-N
external faults at POWS of 90' (X/R=30,&ab =2.80)
I . .

. . . .

... ... - -... " .: " :." .:. ...............

.....,................... ,_
.....\.....
:. :. :. :.
: .. Y . .
-1.. .-..."... ."...
:. '1
.
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
.. .. .. .. .. ..
...........................................
. . . . . .
.
I
.
I
.
I I
. I
. .
.
... ... .. .. ... ... ... ... .. ..
..
, .
. I , .

. . . . . . . .
Time, 40ms/div

Fig. 10 Test 1:- Currents associated with two consecutive

external faults at POWs of 90'. (WR=IO, &ab =OQ,
1=CT1 output, 2=CT2 output, 3=differential current)
Time. .I.Oms/div
Test 2:- same conditions as test 1 except WR is 30. Figure 11
shows that due to this change, and its effect on the saturation Fig.13 Test 4:- Currents associaited with two consecutive A-N
of CT 1, the magnitude of the differential current is increased. external faults (X/R=30,&b=1OOfi)

Test 4:- same condition as test 2, except the stabilising
resistor is 100 ohms (i.e. high impedance scheme). Figure 13
shows that the differential Current has been reduced to a low
value as compared to the results in test 1. This demonstrates
that on an external fault a high impedance scheme
significantly reduces the magnitude of the differential current
Test 5:- describes the performance of a differential protection
scheme during an internal fault. The system parameters are
similar to those in test 3, except that the faults are internal
and their POWs are 90’. Figure 14 shows that for an internal
fault the magnitude of the differential current is significantly
larger than that observed with the external fault in test 3.
Note:- the former is plotted at 40Aldiv, the latter at 2OAldiv..
. . . Evaluation of EMTP-Based Current Transformer Models
.................
... ...
.. .. .. .. ..
. . .
..
...............
.. .. .. .. ..
3 [4] M. Monseu, and all, “Evaluation of Characteristics and
. . . . . . . . . .
Time. +Ome/dIv
Fig.14 Test 5:- Currents associated with two consecutive A-N
internal faults (X/R=IO, R =2.8 Q, POW=27O0)
4. CONCLUSION
This paper has described how an EMTP based simulator can
be used in conjunction with a relay test set to evaluate the
operating performance of a relay operating within a
circulating current differential protection scheme. In addition
to modelling the effect of a fault on the primary power
system, the simulator also represents the effect on the
secondary current signals of directly connecting multiple
current transformers into a single input on the relay. The
accuracy of the simulator was validated using results obtained
from a synthetic test plant. Close agreement between the
measured current signals and the simulated current signals
were observed in all tests. All the results presented in this
paper are based on CTs with a 1 :10 turn ratio and knee point
voltage of 160V. Tests have also been performed on the STP
using CTs with 1 3 0 turns ratio and a knee point voltage of
240V. The results from these tests have been compared with
those obtained &om BMTP test system using the s a m e CT
with 1:SO turns ratio. The results described in this paper and
other results obtained using 1230 turns ratio CTs support the
conclusion that EMTP can be used to implement a circulating
current differential protection test system.
433
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
n e authors would like to acknowledge the support of GEC
LSTHOM T&D and Manchester centrefor ~l~~i~.l
Energy,UMIST.
REFIZRENCES
[l] A. K.S. Chaudhary, K-S Tam and A. G. Phadke,
“Protection System Representation in the Electromagnetic
Transients Program” E E E Trans. on Power Delivery,
Vol. 9, No. 2, April 1994.
[2] M. Kezunovic, L.J. Kojovic and all, “Experimental
for Protective Relay Transient Study”, IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, Vo1.9, No.1, January 1994, pp. 405-
412.
[3] H.Y. Li, E.P. Southern, P.A. Crossley S. Potts, S.D.A.
Pickering, B.R J.Caunce and G.C. Weller “A New Type
of Differential Feeder Protection Relay using Global
Positioning System for Data Synchronisation”, IEEE
Power Summer Meeting (SM 381-4 PWRD), denver,
1996.
Performance of Power System Protection Relays and
Protection Systems”, CIGRE-SC34-WGO4. January 1985.
[ 5 ] Omicron Electronics, 1995, “CMC Version 2.5 User
mnuar’.
BIOGRAPHY
P.A. Crossley is a lecturer in Electrical Engineering at
UMIST. He graduated with a BSc degree from UMIST in
1977 and a PhD degree from the University of Cambridge in
1983. During the period 1977-1990, he worked for GEC
ALSTHOM Protection and Control on the design and
application of digital protection relays. He is a member of the
IEE and IEEE
H.Y. Li received the BEng and MSc degrees ffom HIT and
Shanghai University of Technology, China, in 1982 and 1985
respectively. He attended the University of Bath, UK, in 1990,
and received the PhD degree in 1994. He is currently a
research associate in Electrical Engineering at UMIST, UK.
A.D. Parker received the BEng degree fi-om Liverpool in
1972. After early training in the aircraft industry, he joined
GEC ALSTHOM T&D Protection and Control in 1978. He is
currently a Senior Engineer in Relay Development
Department and is a member of the IEE.