MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS FOR THE SIZING AND SELECTION OF CIRCUIT

BREAKERS IN POWER SYSTEMS

J. Jona and G. Atkinson-Hope

Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a broader analysis approach which adds to the traditional fault analysis technique commonly used in
industry to size and select circuit breakers required for the power system. The fault analysis has been simulated on a
computer software program DIgSILENT PowerFactory for all fault conditions. The circuit breaker selection will be
based on a Multi-Criteria Analysis which helps to evaluate the design to arrive at the most user preferred result. This
approach is refined to incorporate user preferences with respect to the criteria so that the final design is representative of
both the design specification and the concerns of the user. This broader newer approach has been shown by means of
case studies to be effective.

Keywords: Multi-criteria analysis, user preference, fault simulation studies, circuit breakers, total score for breaker.

1. INTRODUCTION flexibility and environmental impact. Thus there is a

Even the most carefully designed power system may be
subjected to damaging high magnitude current during a
fault condition. To ensure that circuit protective
equipment can isolate faults quickly and minimize
system component damage, personnel hazard and outage
severity, it is essential that a fault analysis be done in the
electrical design. Fault study is used to determine the
following [1]:
1) Fault current duties that can compare the first
cycle momentary rating with the interrupting
rating of circuit interrupting devices.
2) Fault current duties to compare with withstand
ratings of system component.
3) The selection of ratings and settings of fault
protective devices such as circuit breaker, solid-
state trip unit, fuses and relays.
4) Evaluation of fault current flow and voltage level
in the overall system for faults in specific areas.
Currently the acceptable standard for sizing and
selecting circuit breakers uses the following criteria to
determine whether or not a circuit breaker is able to
interrupt a fault current [2]:
1) The maximal symmetrical rms current.
2) The maximum instantaneous current.
3) The total rms current.
Traditionally, it is usually necessary to only calculate the
symmetrical fault current at a system location, and then
select a breaker with a symmetrical interrupting
capability equal to or above the calculated current [3].
This approach has the short comings that it does
not take into account aspects such as cost, reliability,
need for a broader based approach than the traditional
one usually used in industry.
2. RESEARCH STATEMENT
The main objective of the paper is to do a fault analysis
study using a simulation tool on a power system and
then from the results, select a sizable circuit breaker
using a Multi-Criteria Analysis broader based approach.
3. MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS (MCA)
Multi-criteria analysis is a decision making process
where several distinct criteria are usually involved when
performing a selection or evaluation of a design. Criteria
are distinct in sense that they cannot be modelled
through an explicit objective function. In this design,
four criteria (k) are considered which are, cost,
reliability, operational flexibility and environmental
impact.
There exist various approaches to multi-criteria analysis
but in this design a weighted sum approach which is
based on heuristic notions of relative scores and user
preference weights will be used. This approach was
found to be very suitable for implementation in power
system planning and design and is based on the formula
[4]:
4
1
TS = ∑ RS UPW (1)
i 100 ik k
k =1

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 9 of 43
 The network parameter data is given in tables 1, 2 and 3,
where: TSi is the total evaluation score of design i and they are based on a base of 100 MVA.
(normalised from 1 to 10), UPWk is a user preference
weight (in percentage) with respect to criterion k and Table 1: Synchronous generator and motor data
RSik is the relative score of the design i with respect to LOCATION RATINGS X0 X1=X”d X2
criterion k. [4]. Per unit
1.0966
User preference allows the designer to stress some MVA
criteria over others. Some utilities may be forced to Syn 1 13.2 kV 0.05 0.20 0.20
DPF = 0.85
stress cost very heavily over others because of very
SUB2B 8.824
limited resources while others may prefer a more MVA
reliable design. Gen 1 13.8 kV 0.05 0.15 0.15
DPF = 0.85
Based on the experience obtained through applying the 2.8097
MCA to power system design and comparing it with MVA
other existing designs, it is possible to deduce that the Syn 2 13.2 kV 0.05 0.20 0.20
user preference (UPWk) with respect to the four basic DPF =
criteria (k) (1-to-4) in power system planning adopted by 0.929
substation designers has the follow common weights in BUS 3 0.6621
percentage (%) [4]: MVA
Syn 3 13.2 kV 0.05 0.15 0.15
DPF =
1) Cost (Cst) 35% 0.899
2) Reliability (Rel) 40%
3) Operational flexibility (Flex) 15% Table 2: Line 1 data
4) Impact on Environment (Envr) 10% Z0 Z1 =Z2
BUS-TO-BUS ohms
R0 X0 R1 X1
4. METHODOLOGY Sub2A - Bus3 0.0608 0.0691 0.0261 0.0379

A one-line-diagram of the power system used for this Table 3: Transformer data
research is shown in figure 1. This system is analysed LEAKAGE
using the DIgSILENT PowerFactory software package BUS-TO-BUS RATING REACTANCE (X)
[5] to determine the fault levels at all the busbars so as to Per unit
size and select circuit breakers using (MCA) suitable for 15 MVA
the system. T1 Main Bus– 34.5/13.8 kV 0.071 (X/R = 39)
Sub2B YN - YN
10 MVA
T2 Main Bus– 34.5/13.8 kV 0.069 (X/R = 23)
Sub2A D - YN

Sbase = 100 MVA

Vbase = 34.5 kV at Main Bus
= 13.8 kV at Sub2A, Sub2B and Bus 3

Utility grid impedance:

Base (MVA)
Zp.u = (2)
Fault Level (MVA)

100 MVA
Zgrid = = j0.4 p.u
2500 MVA
Figure 1 One-line diagram
A. Fault Simulation Studies and Results
The software package was used to do short-circuit
studies.

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 10 of 43
The short-circuit calculations were done according to Table 5: Single-phase short circuit
ANSI. Three short-circuit conditions were studied: FAULT CONTRIBUTION TO FAULT
FAULT CURRENT CURRENT
1) Three-Phase Short Circuit. BUS (kA) Compo- Bus-To-Bus Current
2) Single-Phase Short Circuit. nent (kA)
3) Phase to Phase Short Circuit. GRID Gnd – Main 35.289
Bus
T1 Sub2B – 1.2040
B. Symmetrical Fault MAIN 36.676 Main Bus
The first conducted case study was a symmetrical T2 Sub2A – 0.1830
(bolted three-phase short circuit) fault and provided the Main Bus
current levels as shown in table 4. The resulting short
circuit current values are in kA. T2 Main Bus – 5.8310
Sub2A
Table 4: Three-phase short circuit SUB2A 6.377 LINE1 Bus3 – 0.5460
FAULT CONTRIBUTION TO FAULT Sub2A
FAULT CURRENT CURRENT
BUS (kA) Compo- Current GEN1 Gnd – 4.0570
nent Bus-To-Bus (kA) Sub2B
GRID Gnd – Main 38.033 T1 Main Bus – 8.0990
Bus SUB2B 12.34 Sub2B
T1 Sub2B – 1.0090 SYN1 Gnd – 0.1840
MAIN 39.337 Main Bus Sub2B
T2 Sub2A – 0.2950
Main Bus LINE1 Sub2A – 5.6200
Bus3
T2 Main Bus – 5.7090 BUS3 6.162 SYN2 Gnd – Bus3 0.4120
Sub2A SYN3 Gnd – Bus3 0.1300
SUB2A 6.549 LINE1 Bus3 – 0.8400
Sub2A Table 6: Phase-phase short circuit
FAULT CONTRIBUTION TO FAULT
GEN1 Gnd – 3.2800 FAULT CURRENT CURRENT
Sub2B BUS (kA) Compo- Current
T1 Main Bus – 8.0940 nent Bus-To-Bus (kA)
SUB2B 11.624 Sub2B GRID Gnd – Main 32.942
SYN1 Gnd – 0.2500 Bus
Sub2B T1 Sub2B – 0.8030
MAIN 34.003 Main Bus
LINE1 Sub2A – 5.5530 T2 Sub2A – 0.2580
Bus3 Main Bus
BUS3 6.397 SYN2 Gnd – Bus3 0.6420
SYN3 Gnd – Bus3 0.2020 T2 Main Bus – 4.9510
Sub2A
C. Unsymmetrical Faults SUB2A 5.686 LINE1 Bus3 – 0.7350
Unsymmetrical fault studies were conducted, namely, Sub2A
single-line-to-ground fault in table 5 and phase-to-phase
GEN1 Gnd – 2.4930
(line-to-line) faults in table 6. The results are shown in
Sub2B
these tables. T1 Main Bus – 7.0270
SUB2B 9.739 Sub2B
5. ANALYSIS SYN1 Gnd – 0.2190
Sub2B
The results in tables 4, 5 and 6 show that symmetrical
fault currents are higher when compared with LINE1 Sub2A – 4.8150
asymmetrical fault currents especially when considering Bus3 0.5610
for fault currents at the Main bus, Sub2A and Bus 3. BUS3 5.553 SYN2 Gnd – Bus3 0.1770
SYN3 Gnd – Bus3
Traditionally only this information is used to size and
select circuit breakers. In some cases the sizing and
selection is done based only on the symmetrical fault
current.

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 11 of 43
A. Classification of Electrical Equipment Table 8: User preference weights (%)
Before applying MCA it is necessary to classify User Cost Reliability Flexibility Environmental
electrical equipment according to the following Preference
categories [3]: A1 0 100 0 0
A2 100 0 0 0
1) Electrical conductors A3 0 0 100 0
2) Switching equipment (circuit breakers) A4 0 0 0 100
3) Transformers A5 40 30 20 10
A6 30 20 40 10
4) Compensation equipment
A7 10 50 30 10
5) Protection equipment
A8 10 10 30 50
6) Communication facilities
In industry, cost and reliability criteria are the main
The first step in the equipment classification process
stressed preferences besides flexibility and
consists of choosing the type of electrical apparatus. The
environmental, thus the four criteria of A5 preference
second step is to determine the electrical characteristics
will be used to choose a CB.
which satisfy the design constraints (voltage levels,
insulation levels, short-circuit withstand capacity). In
Using the minimum oil circuit breaker (Min oil) as an
this paper the chosen type is the selection of circuit
example [6], the result is obtained by multiplying the
breakers (CB).
corresponding factors which are then summed together
to get the total score. The cost relative score of breaker
B. Circuit breakers (CB)
is multiplied by the percentage of user preference
A circuit breaker is a mechanical switch capable of
weight, and the same applies to the other three aspects.
interrupting fault currents and is designed to protect an
The individual totals are then added together to get a
electrical apparatus from damage caused by overload or
total score TS for the breaker, namely:
short circuit. Circuit interrupters available today utilise
one of four interrupting/insulating medium techniques:
TS ( Min Oil ) =
(40 × 9 + 30 × 7 + 20 × 6 + 10 × 5) = 7.4
1) Gas (SF6) 100
2) Oil
3) Vacuum It can be seen that the terms one to four in the equation
4) Air represent the products of cost, reliability, flexibility and
environment from tables 7 and 8, respectively. The
6. APPLICATION OF MCA equation is then applied to the other breakers. The circuit
breaker with highest TS is then selected. Table 9 shows
Each circuit breaker (designi) is assigned a relative score the results of the whole insulation medium total scores
(RSik) as shown in table 7, according to the four design for the A5 preference.
criteria (k). The scores are then weighted according to
the user preference weights (UPWk) as shown in table 8, Table 9: Result evaluation of different breakers
then total scores TSi are obtained for the design, then Multi-Criteria Evaluation
they are ranked according to these scores. Type Cost Reliab Flexib Environ TS
-ility -ility -mental
SF6 0.4*4 0.2*10 0.2*8 0.1*7 6.90
The practical application of MCA to select a CB is done Air 0.4*6 0.3*8.5 0.2*7 0.1*10 7.35
by applying equation (1) on the relative scores and the Min oil 0.4*9 0.3*7 0.2*6 0.1*5 7.40
user preference weights are shown in tables 7 and 8, Bulk 0.4*10 0.3*6 0.2*2 0.1*1 6.30
respectively. oil
Total 11.60 9.45 4.60 2.30
These scores are defined through an extensive
consultation process where several experts in the field It can be seen from the evaluation in table 9 that the
give their judgement [4]. “Min oil” circuit breaker exhibits a slight advantage over
the others. It can be seen from the totals that the cost
(11.6) and reliability (9.45) criteria have a greater impact
Table 7: Circuit breaker relative scores on the selection of CB. However the flexibility (4.6) and
Design(i) Criteria (k) (1 to 4) environmental (2.3) cannot be ignored.
CB Cost Reliability Flexibility Environmental
Insulating Relative Score (RSik) From the fault analysis results, circuit breakers can now
Medium
be selected based on their electrical specification. This is
SF6 4 10 8 7
done after the suitable CB type has been identified using
Air-blast 6 8.5 7 10
the MCA approach based on the preferred criteria [7].
Min oil 9 7 6 5
Bulk oil 10 6 2 1

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 12 of 43
 [7] Pender, H. & Del Mar, W.A., Knox McIlwain, “Electrical
Engineer’s Handbook Electric Power”, 3rd Edition, 6th
Table 10: Standard oil circuit breakers printing.
Sym S/C
AUTHOR ADDRESSES
Rated Breaker Breaker Breaker current that
voltage no. rating capacity flows
The authors can be contacted at:
(kV) (rms) (MVA) through each
(kA) CB (rms) Department of Electrical Engineering
(kA) Cape Peninsula University of Technology
1 41.837 2500 38.033 P.O. Box 652
34.5 2 2.510 150 0.295 Cape Town
5 2.510 150 5.709 South Africa
email: atkinsonhopeg@cput.ac.za
3 5.774 150 3.280
4 3.849 100 1.009
6 9.623 250 8.094
7 0.770 20 0.250
15 8 5.774 150 5.553
9 0.770 20 0.642
10 0.770 20 0.202
TIE 19.245 500 11.174

Table 10 presents standard oil CBs selected for the

network in figure 1. Breakers 1, 2 and 5 are at 34.5 kV
and for the rest, 15 kV rating is used as this is the size
closest to the 13.8 kV network voltage.

7. CONCLUSIONS

The developed MCA methodology to support the

decision making process of sizing and selecting a CB
has proven useful and effective.

The developed MCA approach is an improvement over

the traditional approach as user preferences which take
into account design criteria are not ignored.

As a result, a logical and rational approach to power

system design has been developed which meets the input
specifications and responds to the user preference and
concerns of the user.

8. REFERENCES

[1] IEEE Recommended Practice for Power System Analysis

(ANSI), Published by IEEE, Inc. IEEE Std 399-1990, pp
171-200.

[2] Larivière, P., Hydro-Québec, D. Vinet, SNC-Lavalin Inc.,

“An evaluation of short-circuit transient current on circuit
breakers”.

[3] Glover, J.D. & Sarma M., “Power System Analysis and
Design”, Published by PWS-KENT, Wadworth, Inc. 1989,
pp 275-344.

[4] Atanackovic, D, McGillis, D.T. & F.D Galiana, “The

application of Multi-Criteria Analysis to substation design”,
IEEE Transaction on Power System, Vol. 13, No. 3, August
1998, pp 1172.

[5] DIgSILENT Power Factory, version 12.1, DIgSILENT

GmbH Gormaringen, Germany 2001.

[6] Pinnekamp, F, “The circuit breaker- a show case of

industrial product development”, Energise, June 2007, EE
Publishers (pty) Ltd, P.O. Box 458, Muldersdrift, 1747,
South Africa, ISSN 1818-2127.

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 13 of 43