21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 PARIS C4-301 CIGRE 2016

http : //www.cigre.org

Simulating Single-Pole Opening Using a Detailed Protection Model and a

Transient Stability Program

D. M. MACGREGOR* N. D. J. ORREGO-PALACIO
C. ZHENG
S. G. AQUILES-PÉREZ

Electrocon International, Inc. XM S. A. E.S.P.

USA Colombia

SUMMARY

When faults occur on power system lines, the nearest breakers open their poles to isolate the faulted
equipment from the sound portion of the system. By doing so, the stability of the power system is
preserved, as well as the integrity of equipment, and safety of human lives. Many faults tend to be
temporary and they disappear after a relatively short time. Thus, it is common practice to reclose the
breakers after a pre-defined time delay, restoring the line into service and bringing the system back to
a stable operating point. Were the fault condition still present after these first actions, the next
protective action would be either opening the breaker permanently or executing further breaker
opening/reclosing. In past times, these breaker opening/reclosing actions involved all three poles for
all fault types.

In power systems with growing demand, it is often found that even temporary line outages could
compromise system stability, exposing critical equipment to undesirable mechanical and thermal
stresses. One solution employed by system operators is opening only those breaker poles whose
phases are identified as faulted. The intention is that the remaining transmission line phases would
allow the transmission of power on the sound portion of the system while still clearing the fault. Thus,
for single-phase faults, this strategy results in single-pole opening (SPO)/single-pole reclosing (SPR).

The application of single-pole actions requires studying their effects on the stability of the system.
However, computer programs that perform transient-stability studies have limited ability to model
unbalanced conditions, including single-pole opening/reclosing.

A computer platform combining the transient stability function with a phasor-based detailed protection
system model of the bulk electric power system for studying the effect of protective relay operations
on the dynamic behaviour of the system has been presented previously [1]. This platform includes the
ability to simulate unbalanced conditions in transient-stability studies, including single-pole opening
and single-pole reclosing. This platform also models protection with enough detail for achieving
trustworthy simulations. This paper presents the theoretical basis for modelling such unbalanced
conditions within the aforementioned method. Additionally, the application of this method to the study
and simulation of an actual event in the Colombian network system is discussed. In this event,
multiple single-pole trips occurred on a real system following a lightning strike on a transmission line.

KEYWORDS

Single-Pole Opening – Single-Pole Reclosing – Breaker –Stability – Protection

donald@electrocon.com
I. INTRODUCTION

The ability to model single-pole opening is becoming increasingly critical as utilities find that tripping
a single faulted phase for a single-phase-ground fault may be the only resource available to maintain
the balance between generation and load in the system, while still being able to clear temporary faults.
A typical single-pole operation sequence is described in Figure 1.

A) Initial Fault Condition B) Single-Pole Open at One End

C) Single-Pole Open at Other End D) Both Breakers Have Reclosed

Figure 1. Typical Clearing Sequence with Single-Pole Operations

Upon occurrence of a single phase-to-ground fault on a transmission line (Figure 1A), the protection
relays monitoring both extremes of the line identify the faulted condition and determine the faulted
phase. The fastest relay then issues a trip signal to the associated breaker. If the relay algorithm or
operating principle allows it, this tripping signal will act only upon the breaker pole of the identified
faulted phase causing it to open (Figure 1B). With the fault still present, and with the new distribution
of power caused by the first breaker pole opened, the relay at the opposite end issues a single-pole trip
signal to its associated breaker (Figure 1C), which opens the pole of the faulted phase. This latter
action isolates the fault from the healthy portion of the system. Provided that the fault is temporary,
the single-pole reclosing of the breakers involved will restore the faulted line into service after some
pre-set delay (Figure 1D). The individual reclosing operations need not be simultaneous.

The transient stability simulation tools that planning engineers typically employ to study system
dynamics and stability do not normally have the capability to model single-pole operations like the
one described above. This operation involves a number of unbalanced conditions that these tools
normally do not handle. Moreover, the protection devices responsible for fault identification are
usually represented by a generalized model, where the issuing of single-pole opening/reclosing
signals, the single-pole reclosing mechanics (multiple-reclosing shots), and other protective device
details critical for proper simulation are missing.

An environment that allows engineers to simulate the bulk electric power system in a way that models
the effect of protective relay operations on the dynamic behaviour of the system has been described
previously [1]. This tool is called Integrated Protection-Planning Simulation (IPPS). The IPPS
platform accounts for the presence of unbalanced conditions and offers a better approach for solving
the problem of simulating the effect of unbalanced conditions, such as single-pole operation, on the
dynamic stability of the network system.

In this paper, the theory behind the modelling of unbalanced conditions, including but not limited to
single-pole operations, on phasor-based power system study programs is provided. The use of the
unbalanced model representing the single-pole operations within the IPPS environment is described.
Finally, the application of this tool on the analysis of a real event involving single-pole operation is
discussed.

1
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

An applied fault is treated as a sudden system disturbance; treated similarly are a line outage, breaker
opening, or a change in generation or load. These disturbances cause time-varying changes in the
voltages and power flows.

For an unbalanced condition (such as an unbalanced fault or a single-pole opening) the disturbed
positive-sequence network includes equivalent branches replacing the negative- and zero-sequence
networks. The classical series or shunt faults are special cases. In the present method, the sequence
connections at the fault buses are represented by bus admittance and impedance matrices, so a
traditional sequence network diagram is not needed and the technique applies to a general balanced or
unbalanced condition. In [2], a similar model has been applied to the special case of a single-phase-
ground fault on one branch.

For a midline fault with one pole open, Figure 2 shows the equivalent "Pi" branch in the dynamic
positive-sequence network.
ZKM
Node K Node M

YK YM

Figure 2. Faulted Branch in Positive-Sequence Network

The Pi branch impedances are computed as follows:

Read the network database and build the steady-state network admittance matrix YBUS with blocks
(YBUS0, YBUS1, YBUS2) in sequence (zero-/positive-/negative-sequence) coordinates.

Define the N fault buses, including the original end buses adjacent to open breakers or midline faults.

Reduce YBUS to a 3·N by 3·N matrix, retaining the N buses involved in the fault.

Convert the sequence admittance matrix to phase coordinates. Add the connections of the faulted
phases by overlapping and collapsing [3]. The resulting matrix YABC relates the 3·N post-fault voltages
to the source currents at the equivalent generator buses:

YABC × VABC =
I ABC (1)

Invert YABC to obtain the bus impedance matrix, and then return to sequence coordinates, in order to
eliminate the zero and negative sequences where the source current is zero.

 Z 00 Z 01 Z 02   0  V0 
Z Z11 Z12  ×  I Norton  =
 
 10 V1  (2)
 Z 20 Z 21 Z 22   0  V2 

INorton contains all the time-varying generator source currents. It will be found from the positive-
sequence dynamic solution and used to obtain the desired voltages (V0, V1, V2). Block Z11 includes the
fault information for the positive-sequence network. It is converted to equivalent branches as follows:

Exclude any temporary fault buses (such as mid-line nodes, where INorton is zero) and invert the
remainder of Z11 to obtain the admittance matrix Y11 in the faulted network.

2
 −1
Y11 = Z11 (3)

Then subtract the original network reduced to the permanent fault buses, leaving the fault connections:

Y=
f Y11 − YBUS1 (4)

Convert Yf to network branches and add them to the dynamic (transient stability) network.

To obtain the relay currents and voltages for the protection simulation, advance the dynamic
calculation by one step and find the new post-fault voltage V1 at every bus. Calculate the positive-
sequence current flows, assuming that the impedances of lines and transformers are constant at their
initial values. For a balanced three-phase fault, the zero-sequence and negative-sequence voltages are
zero. For an unbalanced fault, derive the zero-sequence and negative-sequence voltages (V0, V2) at
both permanent and temporary fault buses, from equations 2 and 3.

V0 = Z 01 × Y11 × V1
V2 = Z 21 × Y11 × V1 (5)

Using equation 2, compute Inorton and hence interpolate V1 to the temporary fault buses.

Find the fault currents I0_f and I2_f at the fault buses from the incremental voltages in the unfaulted
network:
YBUS0 × V0 =
I0 _ f
(6)
YBUS2 × V2 =
I2 _ f

Inject these currents into the original network to obtain the remaining sequence voltages and relay
currents.

III. USE OF UNBALANCED MODEL ON INTEGRATED SIMULATION

The flow chart in Figure 3 summarizes the closed-loop integrated simulation as carried out in IPPS:

1. The transient stability program computes the initial voltage profile at all buses in the electrical
network, based upon a certain known loading condition in the network and the topology. This
steady-state initial condition is superimposed on the protection model.
2. The protection program applies an unbalanced condition and reduces any network imbalances to
positive-sequence equivalent branches.
3. Next, the transient stability program simulates the unbalanced condition, evaluates network
dynamics, and recalculates the positive-sequence voltage profile.
4. The protection simulation tool takes this positive-sequence voltage profile, calculates the negative-
and zero-sequence voltage profiles as needed for the present unbalanced condition (unbalanced
fault, single-pole breaker opening, etc.) based on the fault injections described by equations (6),
and determines the operation of protective relays in the network. The operating times of the relays
determine when the next circuit breaker is going to open and change the network topology. This
time of operation is passed back to the transient stability calculation.
5. The transient stability program then modifies its network to account for this topological change
(open or close breaker), simulates the dynamics of the generators and their controls, and re-
computes a new positive-sequence voltage profile that it passes to the protection simulation
program (to Step 4 above).

3
 TS: Compute initial voltage profile; superimpose it in PS

PS: While present time < Total Simulation Time

PS:
- For any change in the faulted network:
-Compute new network admittances
-Compute equivalent positive-sequence branch for TS
- Read new voltage profile from TS
- For an unbalanced condition, compute negative- and zero-sequence
voltages everywhere in the system
- Calculate relay currents
- Advance PS simulation by one time step
- Evaluate relay operation and open related breakers, if that is the case

TS:
- If any network change, connect new positive-sequence equivalent branches
- Advance TS simulation by one time step
- Calculate new positive-sequence voltage profile and return control to PS

PS: Protection Simulation

TS: Transient Stability

Figure 3. Closed-Loop Interaction between Protection Simulation and Transient Stability.

IV. ANALYSIS OF A REAL SINGLE-POLE OPERATION CASE

The Colombia transmission network has implemented single-pole opening and single-pole reclosing
on most of its lines at 220 kV and above. Most lines at this voltage level are protected using
Permissive Over-reaching Transfer Trip (POTT) schemes. On each end, Colombian facilities have a
set of relay functions serving as primary protection, along with a second set serving as local backup.

A. Event description

During a storm in August of 2011, lightning struck phase C of the 156 km, 220 kV transmission line
connecting Substation A with Substation B, 5.6 km (3.59%) away from Substation A, as shown in
Figure 4. For time reference, this is the initial time (t = 0).

SUBSTATION B
SUBSTATION D LOAD 1

SUBSTATION A

BUS 1

SUBSTATION C SUBSTATION E

BUS 2

Figure 4. Lightning Striking Phase C of Line Substation A-Substation B (t = 0)

4
The phase C pole opening of breaker Substation A-Substation B occurred at t = 40.8 ms (2.45 cycles).
The phase C pole opening of breaker Substation B-Substation A occurred at t = 89.9 ms (5.39 cycles),
isolating the fault (Figure 5.)

SUBSTATION B
SUBSTATION D LOAD 1

SUBSTATION A
C C
BUS 1

SUBSTATION C SUBSTATION E

BUS 2

Figure 5. Phase C Pole Opening of Breakers at the Extremes of Faulted Line (t = 89.9 ms).

Although single-pole reclosing was programmed on the line Substation A-Substation B, these
expected actions did not happen, due to unknown reasons. Then, an incorrect three-phase breaker
opening occurred on the line Substation A-Substation C at t = 288 ms (17.25 cycles), due to a ground
directional protective device in the same location incorrectly identifying the condition at that point as a
forward fault, as seen in Figure 6.

SUBSTATION B
SUBSTATION D LOAD 1

SUBSTATION A
C C
BUS 1

SUBSTATION C SUBSTATION E

BUS 2

Figure 6. Breakers Opened at the Extremes of Line Substation A-Substation C (t = 316 ms).

There were further breaker operations in the vicinity but these are not discussed in this paper. The
owner electricity company reported that the stability of the system during the event was preserved and
that the frequency security thresholds (system frequency between 59.8 Hz to 60.2 Hz) were not
infringed.

B. Event Simulation

An initial step analyzed the available COMTRADE files of the actual event. This analysis allowed
reconstruction of the event as described in the previous section.

Then the preparatory work necessary for the integrated simulation described in [1] was performed.
This preparatory work involved matching bus by bus and branch by branch the system models of both
the planning program and the protection program. The base case of the Colombian system was
employed updating the protection system model to the state it had at the time of the event. This
included placing the detailed relay models of the primary and local backup relays and modeling of the
POTT teleprotection schemes on all the lines of interest. It is worth noticing that the detailed relay
models employed in the study have implemented single-pole opening logic in their functioning.
Moreover, the protection program has implemented three-phase or single-pole opening in the breaker
model according to the received trip signal from the associated relay model. Without these features,
the simulation under study would not be possible.

5
Once the preparatory work was finalized then the simulation took place. This was initiated with the
application of a phase C-to-ground fault at 3.59% of the line Substation A-Substation B (t = 0 ms).
Table 1 shows the breaker action during the IPPS simulation and the times of occurrence in
milliseconds. Reference is the fault inception time. These are compared with the actions and times
derived from the COMTRADE files (event description).

COMTRADE IPPS Simulation

SPO Phase C: Substation A – Substation B Breaker 40.834 ms 42 ms
SPO Phase C: Substation B – Substation A Breaker 89.844 ms 98 ms

Table 1. Breaker Actions and Time Occurrence

Figure 7 shows the distance characteristics of the protection from line Substation A-Substation B as
well as the apparent impedance of the event. Figure 8 shows a similar graph but from line Substation
B-Substation A. Line impedance is 58.4 ∠ 84.8° primary ohms.

REZ1 Zone 1
REZ1 Zone 2 Pre-Fault

Fault
After 2nd SPO

After1st SPO

Figure 7. Relay Characteristic and Apparent Impedance from Line Substation A-Substation B.

RAZFE Zone 1 After1st SPO

RAZFE Zone 2
Fault

Pre-Fault After 2nd SPO

Figure 8. Relay Characteristic and Apparent Impedance from Line Substation B-Substation A.

Table 2 and Table 3 show the phasor values of currents observed from line Substation A-Substation B
and of voltages at the local bus Substation A, both from the COMTRADE files and the simulation.
Table 2 shows phasors before the fault and after the fault inception. Table 3 shows phasors right after
SPO of phase C of breaker Substation A-Substation B and phasors observed right after SPO of phase
C of breaker Substation B-Substation A. Voltage values are in primary kV and currents are in primary
amperes. All COMTRADE angles are referred to the local phase A-to-ground voltage.

6
 Pre-Fault Fault
Phasor COMTRADE IPPS Simulation COMTRADE IPPS Simulation
IA 403.2 ∠ -7.4° 350.0 ∠ -11.0° 507.6 ∠ 2.9° 411.4 ∠ 5.6°
IB 420.0 ∠ -126.6° 350.0 ∠ -131.0° 295.2 ∠ -122.6° 287.1 ∠ -110.7°
IC 350.4 ∠ 107.3° 350.0 ∠ 109.0264° 15451.2 ∠ 43.0° 16803.8 ∠ 36.6°
3I0 71.0 ∠ -50.6° 0.0 ∠ 0° 15559.0 ∠ 41.5° 16918.8 ∠ 35.3°
VA 135.65 ∠ 0° 138.34 ∠ -0.5° 130.94 ∠ 0° 128.33 ∠ 4.8°
VB 134.85 ∠ -120.3° 138.34 ∠ -120.5° 130.02 ∠ -123.4° 131.12 ∠ -126.0°
VC 134.38 ∠ 119.9° 138.34 ∠ 119.5° 51.96 ∠ 109.0° 49.59 ∠ 114.0°
3V0 0.65 ∠ 8.7° 0.0 ∠ 0° 73.13 ∠ -54.4° 58.55 ∠ -58.6°

Table 2. Pre-fault and Fault Currents and Voltages Monitored from Substation A-Substation B

After 1st SPO After 2nd SPO

Phasor COMTRADE IPPS Simulation COMTRADE IPPS Simulation
IA 528.0 ∠ 0.2° 668.4 ∠ 7.5° 414.0 ∠ -4.5° 359.0 ∠ 2.8°
IB 294.0 ∠ -117.1° 147.5 ∠ -54.9° 416.4 ∠ -130.6° 308.2 ∠ -140.4°
IC 46.8 ∠ -24.7° 0.0 ∠ 0° 39.6 ∠ -103.7° 0.0 ∠ 0°
3I0 518.61 ∠ -32.7° 748.3 ∠ -2.6° 408.9 ∠ -71.1° 216.0 ∠ -55.9°
VA 134.654 ∠ 0° 135.48 ∠ 0.4° 135.46 ∠ 0° 137.94 ∠ 0.9°
VB 133.94 ∠ -120.0° 135.45 ∠ -120.0° 134.25 ∠ -120.3° 137.69 ∠ -119.1°
VC 128.78 ∠ 120.8° 131.99 ∠ 120.8° 134.16 ∠ 120.3° 137.80 ∠ 121.2°
3V0 5.58 ∠ -72.0° 2.85 ∠ -86.8° 0.14 ∠ -27.9° 0.62 ∠ -148.4°

Table 3. Currents and Voltages Monitored from Substation A-Substation B After SPO Actions.

In a similar fashion, Tables 4 and 5 show the current phasor values observed from line Substation B-
Substation A, and voltage phasors at the local bus Substation B.

Pre-Fault Fault
Phasor COMTRADE IPPS Simulation COMTRADE IPPS Simulation
IA 423.1 ∠ 173.7° 372.8 ∠ 154.3° 516.3 ∠ -175.1° 411.6 ∠ 168.4°
IB 436.8 ∠ 54.7° 372.8 ∠ 34° 292.1 ∠ 53.62° 272.8 ∠ 42.8°
IC 369.4 ∠ -71.7° 372.8 ∠ -85.7° 842.6 ∠ 31.7° 973.5 ∠ 18.6°
3I0 73.9 ∠ 135.1° 0.0 ∠ 0° 736.9 ∠ 59.3° 923.7 ∠ 38.8°
VA 122.76 ∠ 0° 131.40 ∠ -9.0° 114.72 ∠ 0° 121.43 ∠ -2.8°
VB 123.66 ∠ -120.1° 131.40 ∠ -129.0° 118.49 ∠ -128.2° 127.03 ∠ -135.9°
VC 123.30 ∠ 119.4° 131.40 ∠ 111.0° 92.93 ∠ 110.4° 78.41 ∠ 102.5°
3V0 0.43 ∠ 78.5° 0.0 ∠ 0° 10.82 ∠ -33.9° 22.19 ∠ -53.5°

Table 4. Pre-fault and Fault Currents and Voltages Monitored from Substation B-Substation A

After 1st SPO After 2nd SPO

Phasor COMTRADE IPPS Simulation COMTRADE IPPS Simulation
IA 537.76 ∠ -176.5° 659.8 ∠ 179.7° 431.9 ∠ 177.82° 365.8 ∠ 168.3°
IB 291.6 ∠ 59.7° 67.7 ∠ 100.5° 431.7 ∠ 52.0° 341.8 ∠ 24.5°
IC 1606.4 ∠ 39.0° 1486.7 ∠ 25.5° 31.1 ∠ -34.0° 0.0 ∠ 0°
3I0 1499.7 ∠ 55.0° 975.8 ∠ 46.6° 399.1 ∠ 110.5° 220.9 ∠ 102.3°
VA 120.04 ∠ 0° 127.64 ∠ -7.3° 121.89 ∠ 0° 130.12 ∠ -8.0°
VB 120.71 ∠ -122.0° 127.14 ∠ -129.7° 123.30 ∠ -120.2° 130.71 ∠ -128.3°
VC 110.22 ∠ 117.2° 109.19 ∠ 109.8° 124.68 ∠ 118.6° 128.95 ∠ 110.4°
3V0 7.26 ∠ -36.6° 14.02 ∠ -53.0° 2.69 ∠ 20.8° 3.0 ∠ 2.02°

Table 5. Currents and Voltages Monitored from Substation B-Substation A After SPO Actions.
7
Figure 9 shows the simulation frequencies at Substation A and Substation B during the event, just
before the predicted incorrect operation in line Substation A-Substation C. This result agrees with the
statement of the owner company that the frequency remained within the security limit.
After1st SPO
After 2nd SPO

Substation B

Substation A

Figure 9. Relay Characteristic and Apparent Impedance from Line Substation B-Substation A.

The extent of the simulation ends at this point because the incorrect operation on the line Substation
A-Substation C could not be reproduced. The rest of this section explains the reasons for this
shortcoming.

Table 6 shows a comparison of current phasors obtained from COMTRADE files and those obtained
from the simulation as monitored from line Substation A-Substation C. Voltages on Substation A are
the same as in Table 3.

After 1st SPO After 2nd SPO

Phasor COMTRADE IPPS Simulation COMTRADE IPPS Simulation
IA 690.0 ∠ -11.5° 500.0 ∠ -26.2° 598.8 ∠ -13.2° 581.9 ∠ -20.5°
IB 603.6 ∠ -142.2° 658.8 ∠ -139.8° 642.0 ∠ -144.2° 590.9 ∠ -136.6°
IC 1149.6 ∠ 69.2° 706.2 ∠ 84.7° 796.8 ∠ 100.0° 641.6 ∠ 101.5°
3I0 831.0 ∠ 43.0° 57.7 ∠ 79.2° 282.9 ∠ 105.6° 21.8 ∠ 121.5°

Table 6. Currents Monitored from Substation A-Substation C After SPO Actions.

These different sets of phasors were injected separately into the operation algorithm of the mentioned
ground directional protective device model using the relevant instrument transformers (CTR = 1200
and VTR = 2000). In the relay model, the equation 3·I0·cos(65°-φ), is evaluated, φ being the angle by
which the negative of the residual voltage leads the residual current. If this value is greater than a
settable threshold (0.18 in this case), then the protection declares a forward fault and issues a trip
signal. Below are shown the results:

After 1st SPO After 2nd SPO

COMTRADE IPPS Simulation COMTRADE IPPS Simulation
3I0 0.693 ∠ 43.0° 0.048 ∠ 79.4° 0.236 ∠ 105.6° 0.018 ∠ 121.6°
3V0 2.517 ∠ -72.5° 1.429 ∠ -86.8° 0.129 ∠ -12.1° 0.311 ∠ -148.4°
φ=arg(-3V0)-arg(3I0) 64.6° 13.8° 62.4° -90.0°
3I0·cos(65°-φ) 0.69 0.03 0.24 -0.02
Operation Yes No Yes No

Table 7. Relay Operation Algorithm Results at Substation A-Substation C After SPO Actions.

8
It is very important to realize that, at this point of the event, the residual currents and voltages
monitored by the protection are mainly determined by how the power is distributed in the system,
since they are no longer influenced by the cleared fault. Thus, the success of reproducing the event at
this point depends largely on the accuracy of the representation of the pre-fault generation-load
profile, information that was not available. Note also that the pre-fault load imbalance shown by the
COMTRADE recordings in Tables 2 and 4 is beyond the ability of a positive-sequence-only transient
stability program to represent. This limitation affects the accuracy of the quantities passed to the
protection simulation.

The authors suspect that if the study had been conducted with a base case whose generation-load
profile more closely resembled the one that the system had at the time of the event, reproduction of the
incorrect operation in the line Substation A-Substation C could have been achieved.

V. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a general method to represent unbalanced conditions within transient stability
studies using equivalent positive-sequence impedances. The method has been implemented
successfully in the environment of a computer platform where transient stability software and
protection software run in a closed-loop fashion. This way, the effect of unbalanced conditions may be
studied, including unbalanced faults and single-pole breaker opening or reclosing.

This methodology was employed to simulate a real event on the Colombian electric power system. In
this event, two single-pole breaker openings occurred after lightning struck a power line at 220 kV.
The simulation of the event rendered good qualitative agreement with the measured current and
voltages. It has highlighted the need of accurate initial voltages at the generators and loads in order to
obtain better results.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to recognize the support provided by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, through Mr. Travis
Smith, for the development of this paper.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] A. Gopalakrishnan, S. G. Aquiles-Pérez, D. M. MacGregor, D. B. Coleman, P. F. McGuire, K.

W. Jones, J. Senthil, J. W. Feltes, G. Pietrow, A. Bose, “Simulating the Smart Electric Power
Grid of the 21st Century- Bridging the Gap between Protection and Planning,” (C2-116 CIGRE
Session 45, August 2014.)
[2] Sergio Porto Roméro, Ricardo Diniz Rangel, Fernando Hevelton Duarte Oliveira, Sergio Luis
Varricchio, "Modelo de Seqüência Positiva de Linhas com Abertura Monopolar para Estudos de
Estabilidade Transitória," (9th Symposium of Specialists in Electric Operational and Expansion
Planning, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil; May 23-27, 2004).
[3] Fernando L. Alvarado, Sao Khai Mong, and Mark K. Enns, "A Fault Program with Macros,
Monitors, and Direct Compensation in Mutual Groups," (IEEE Transactions on
PowerApparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-104, No. 5, pp. 1109-1120; May 1985.)