Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4, JULY/AUGUST 2004
941
ratio.
I. INTRODUCTION
N the calculation of short-circuit currents for breaker evalratio can be a critical factor.
uation, the fault point
Both ANSI/IEEE C37.010-1999 [1] and IEC-61909-1988 [2]
ratio determined by the fundamental-freinfer that the bus
quency complex impedance network reduction may not result in
ratio to be used in determining the dc coma conservative
ponent of the short-circuit current. ANSI/IEEE C37.010-1999
network reduction to deterrecommends a separate and
ratio. While IEC-61909 allows several
mine the fault point
ratio. The
ratio is
methods to provide a conservative
important since it determines the amount of dc in the short-circuit current and its application to breaker withstand and interrupting time duties.
This paper proposes three methods to eliminate the second
network reduction required by ANSI/IEEE and IEC Standards.
These methods are IEC Method A variation, characteristic curratio current method. By using
rent method, and weighted
the information available in the fundamental frequency complex impedance network solution, the proposed methods mainratio
tain conservatism in the calculation of the fault point
and therefore in the asymmetrical short-circuit current.
This paper will first briefly explain ANSI/IEEE as well as
IEC methods, and then the paper explains the three proposed
ratio is premethods. A comparison of the fault point
sented.
Paper PID-04-09, presented at the 2003 IEEE Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical Conference, Houston, TX, September 1517, and approved
for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications
Society. Manuscript submitted for review September 18, 2003 and released for
publication May 7, 2004.
K. Dartawan is with Power Technologies, Inc, Schenectady, NY 12301-1058
USA (e-mail: ketut.dartawan@shawgrp.com).
C. St. Pierre is with Electric Power Consultants, LLC, Schenectady, NY
12306 USA (e-mail: conrad@capital.net).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2004.831268
942
Fig. 1.
Two-branch equivalent.
Fig. 2.
Three-branch equivalent.
ratio
From the branches that are carrying at least 10% current of the
total short-circuit, the highest branch
is used for the bus
ratio. An absolute value is used in the equation to prevent
a negative
ratio. This
ratio method is noted in the
tables as IEC A Option.
TABLE I
IMPEDANCE RANGE USED IN MODEL
ratio
Abs
(2)
After each dc component is determined and totaled, the equivalent fault point
ratio is found from (3)
Equiv Bus
(3)
The weighted
ratio current method presented by the authors has a means to reduce the high
ratio that can occur
ratio of IEC Method A variation
when the largest branch
The ANSI/IEEE method, IEC Method C, and other procedures provided in this paper may not have any vigorous proof
that they provide a conservative estimate for actual
ratios which affect the dc component. They provide an expedient
943
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX X=R RATIO
X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 5:0, X 2 = j 5:0, R 3 = 0:08, X 3 = j 0:8
Fig. 4. Plot of bus X=R ratios for various methods on a three-branch circuit.
Data are from Table II.
The actual dc component can be found by time dependent variables using an Electro-Magnetic Transient Program
(EMTP) rather than complex impedance reduction used in
short-circuit programs. However, for systems with more than 10
or 20 nodes, a time-dependent model becomes time consuming
for the engineer.
VII. FAULT POINT
COMPARISONS
944
TABLE III
rms MULTIPLIERS
X=R
Fig. 6. DC decay from EMTP model for the three-branch circuit shown in
Fig. 5.
TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX
RATIO X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 5:0, X 2 = j 5:0
X=R
TABLE V
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX
RATIO X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:5, X 2 = j 5:0
945
X=R
has a unique bend when the phase angle of the current in one
branch becomes greater than 90 . Therefore, it makes the
ratio nonconservative for this condition.
VIII. AC AND DC CURRENT FLOWS
The purpose of this section is to show that the dc component
for the branch currents cannot be easily calculated using the
complex impedance fault point
ratio.
946
TABLE VI
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX
RATIO X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:2, X 2 = j 1:0
X=R
TABLE VII
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX
RATIO X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:1, X 2 = j 1:0
X=R
TABLE VIII
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX X=R RATIO
X 1 = j 5:0, R 2 = 0:5, X 2 = j 5:0, R3 = 0:08, X 3 = j 0:8
from the faulted bus. For this situation, the sum of the branch dc
components may be less than the common branch current.
Shown in Fig. 5, top diagram, is the dc current component
calculated from the branch current using its phase angle and
947
TABLE IX
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX X=R RATIO
X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:2, X 2 = 1:0, R3 = 0:08, X 3 = j 0:8
948
TABLE X
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX X=R RATIO
X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:1, X 2 = 1:0, R3 = 0:08, X 3 = j 0:8
IX. CONCLUSION
While the eight circuit configurations do not represent an exratios, they do
haustive examination of different system
method would be a
show that the CCM or the weighted
good compromise between the separate and
network reductions recommended in ANSI/IEEE Standard and IEC-60909
Method C.
Both the ANSI/IEEE and the IEC methods require the complete network to be reduced at least twice. It is the contention
of the authors that a complex network reduction has enough inratio to similar
formation to approximate the fault point
accuracy as the present ANSI/IEEE and IEC dual network reductions.
The calculation of the dc component by the CCM or
approach should not require as much comweighted
puter time as the second matrix building and reduction used in
the present standards. In the authors opinion, the CCM method
method appears to be a more reasonable
or the weighted
approach than the present ANSI/IEEE or IEC methods.
From this paper the following points are made.
ratio
1) The complex impedance network reduction
ratio and, therefore, may
is lower than the EMTP
under estimate the dc component.
2) The IEC Method C does a good job in matching the
ratio, but the IEC Method C can be
EMTP network
ratios.
nonconservative for some
3) ANSI/IEEE method and IEC Method A Variation
ratios below those of the EMTP model.
do yield
methods also yield
The CCM and Weighted
ratios below those of the EMTP model but in fewer
instances and with smaller deviation. The procedure of
IEC Method A Variation consistently provides the most
ratio.
conservative
4) ANSI/IEEE method, IEC Method A Variation, and
do occasionally overestimate the
Weighted
ratio significantly.
ratio appears to do the best
5) The CCM method for
overall job without being overly conservative.
calculated by complex
6) The largest ratio between the
network reduction to that by EMTP is approximately 2.5.
Therefore, if any of the above methods yields an
ratio that is greater than 2.5 times that calculated from the
ratio, it is satisfactory
complex impedance network
to use an
ratio 2.5 times the complex impedance
ratio.
network
ratio for the proposed
7) If the calculated fault point
ratio,
methods is less than the complex impedance
then use the complex impedance
ratio.
APPENDIX
Tables IIIX are supplementary tables for the configurations
not given in the main body of the paper. Table III gives the
peak and time to peak for a short-circuit current. From these
two values the actual fault point can be obtained by differential
equations or by an iteration technique. A direct equation to obratio knowing the peak and time to peak is
tain the circuit
not a simple procedure. Therefore, an approximation to the acratio from the equations listed at the bottom
tual fault point
of Table III was used. The time to peak and ratio of peak to
rms current was taken from the EMTP results. The Corrected
ratio using these equations is a close approximation to
ratio as noted by the first and last
the actual fault point
columns.
Tables IVVII provide a summary for the Fig. 1 configuration, while Tables VIIIX provide a summary for the Fig. 2
configuration. The shaded areas indicate where the method is
nonconservative compared to the EMTP model.
REFERENCES
[1] Application Guide for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a
Symmetrical Current Basis, ANSI/IEEE Standard C37.010-1999.
[2] Short-Circuit Current Calculation in Three-Phase a.c Systems, IEC
60909-1988, International Standard.
[3] G. Parise, A new approach to calculate the decaying AC contributions
to short-circuit: The characteristic currents method, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Applicat., vol. 31, pp. 214221, Jan./Feb. 1995.
to
[4] H. Reichenstein and J. Gomez, Relationship of X=R, I and I
asymmetry in resistance/reactance circuits, IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat.,
vol. IA-21, Mar./Apr. 1985.
[5] IIIE. Gross and R. Kuntzendorf, Current asymmetry in resistance-reactance circuits, Trans. AIEE, vol. 79, pp. 897900, Dec. 1960.
[6] IIIE. Gross and B. Thapar, Current asymmetry in resistance-reactance
circuits-II, Trans. AIEE, vol. 80, pp. 800803, Dec. 1961.
[7] C. St. Pierre, A Practical Guide to Short-Circuit Calculations. Dexter,
MI: Thomson-Shore, Aug. 2001.
949