Railway Protection Study Settings and Modelling

A thesis submitted to Newcastle University for the degree of
Master of Science in Power Distribution Engineering

In the Faculty of Science, Agriculture and Engineering
RAILWAY PROTECTION STUDY
Author and ID:

Hans Juneby (170327592)
Supervisors
Ing. John Caruana
Dr Haris Patsios
Dr Mansoureh Zangiabadi
2019
SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING
I, Hans Juneby, confirm that this report and the work presented in it are my own achievement.
I have read and understand the penalties associated with plagiarism.
Hans Juneby
Signed: .......................................................
28/08/19
Date: ..........................................................
EEE8093 Research Project
ABSTRACT
The electrification of the railway has developed significantly over the past one hundred years.
Different electrification systems have been developed all over the world. In the future, new
systems will be designed as technology continues to advance. Protection systems will continue to
play an important role in keeping railway protection systems running safely and efficiently.
This dissertation aids a project which involves calculating protection settings covering the Phase
4 substations between central Manchester and Preston. In addition to verifying that the settings are
successful in discriminating against existing loads and future network expansion. The protection
settings were calculated successfully in compliance with Network Rail Standards. The Phase 4 AT
System and distance protection relays were modelled using MATLAB and Simulink as a tool to
simulate loads and faults.
Load flow and fault studies were carried out. These studies demonstrated that there is room for
additional trains to be added to the timetable, without causing nuisance tripping. The studies also
demonstrated that the proposed protection settings will clear a faulted circuit under the required
trip times for all feeding scenarios.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to my supervisors Ing. John Caruana, Dr Haris Patsios and Dr Mansoureh Zangiabadi
for their advice and guidance provided which helped me complete this dissertation. I would like
to thank Power Supply Projects for sponsoring my degree and my co-workers for their project
advice. I also like to thank my girlfriend Emma Owens for her love and support. I have also made
several good friends throughout this degree and I am grateful for their friendship.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................viii
List of Principle Symbols ............................................................................................................... ix
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Project Definition ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Railway Electrification ..................................................................................................... 2
Classic Electrification ............................................................................................... 3
Autotransformer System ........................................................................................... 4
2.2. Protection Systems ........................................................................................................... 6
Distance Protection ................................................................................................... 6
Differential Protection ............................................................................................... 8
Overcurrent Protection ............................................................................................ 10
2.3. Communication Protocols for Intelligent Electronic Devices ........................................ 10
IEC 60870 ............................................................................................................... 11
IEC 61850 ............................................................................................................... 11
2.4. Accelerated Distance Protection ..................................................................................... 12
3. System Design ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.1. Conditions of the System................................................................................................ 13
Feeding Scenarios ................................................................................................... 14
Overhead Line Details ............................................................................................. 15
4. Determination of the Protection Settings .............................................................................. 16
iii
4.1. Distance Protection Calculations .................................................................................... 16
Zone 1 ...................................................................................................................... 19
Zone 2 ...................................................................................................................... 20
Zone 3 ...................................................................................................................... 20
Distance Protection Settings Summary ................................................................... 21
4.2. Effect of an AT System on Distance Protection ............................................................. 22
5. System Modelling using MATLAB ...................................................................................... 25
5.1. Distance protection relay in MATLAB .......................................................................... 25
5.2. AT System in MATLAB ................................................................................................ 27
6. Results and Studies................................................................................................................ 30
6.1. Load Flow Studies using MATLAB .............................................................................. 30
Loads - Normal Feeding .......................................................................................... 30
Maximum Possible Load ......................................................................................... 31
6.2. Fault Studies using MATLAB ........................................................................................ 34
Faults - Normal Feeding .......................................................................................... 35
Faults - SATS Bypassed .......................................................................................... 37
Faults - No ADP ...................................................................................................... 37
Load with a Fault in Adjacent Circuit ..................................................................... 41
6.3. Initial Short Circuit Testing Results ............................................................................... 43
Proposed Temporary Changes ................................................................................ 44
6.4. Second Short Circuit Testing Results ............................................................................. 48
ATS Track Feeders.................................................................................................. 49
Ordsall Lane ATFS Track Feeders.......................................................................... 51
6.5. Simulated Results vs Reality .......................................................................................... 54
7. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 57
7.1. Future Work .................................................................................................................... 57
8. References ............................................................................................................................. 58
iv
Appendix A Distance Protection Settings ................................................................................ 60
Appendix B MATLAB Code ................................................................................................... 76
Appendix C MATLAB Plots ................................................................................................... 83
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Booster Transformer System ........................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Typical Classic Feeding Diagram .................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Autotransformer System .................................................................................................. 4
Figure 4. Typical Autotransformer Feeding Diagram ..................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Distance Protection Zone Coverage ................................................................................ 7
Figure 6. Distance Protection Operating Characteristic .................................................................. 8
Figure 7. Differential Protection Principle ...................................................................................... 9
Figure 8. High Impedance Differential Protection .......................................................................... 9
Figure 9. Phase 4 Section Impedance Diagram ............................................................................. 19
Figure 10. AT System Fault Impedance Profile ............................................................................ 23
Figure 11. P44T Main Subsystem Block ..................................................................................... 25
Figure 12. P44T Interior Subsystem Block .................................................................................. 26
Figure 13. P44T Tripping Subsystem Block ................................................................................ 27
Figure 14. Phase 4 AT System Model in Simulink ...................................................................... 28
Figure 15. Normal Feeding Load Currents ................................................................................... 30
Figure 16. Normal Feeding Impedance Plots for OL/SX-51 (simulated) ..................................... 31
Figure 17. Maximum Load Impedance Plots for OL/SX-51 (simulated) ..................................... 32
Figure 18. Maximum Possible Load Currents .............................................................................. 32
Figure 19. Maximum Impedance Plots (simulated) ...................................................................... 33
Figure 20. Simulating a Fault in Simulink .................................................................................... 34
Figure 21. Simulated Fault Locations ........................................................................................... 34
Figure 22. Normal Feeding First Fault Current............................................................................. 35
Figure 23. Normal Feeding First Fault Impedance Plots (simulated) ........................................... 36
Figure 24. No ADP First Fault Current ......................................................................................... 38
Figure 25. No ADP Second Fault Current .................................................................................... 38
Figure 26. No ADP Second Fault Impedance Plots (simulated) ................................................... 39
Figure 27. No ADP Third Fault Current ....................................................................................... 40
Figure 28. No ADP Third Fault Impedance Plots (simulated) ...................................................... 40
Figure 29. Load and Fault Current ................................................................................................ 42
Figure 30. Load and Fault Impedance Plots (simulated) .............................................................. 42
Figure 31. SC1 top left, SC2 top right, SC3 bottom left, SC4 bottom right (reality) ................... 46
vi
Figure 32. New Setting - SC1 top left, SC2 top right, SC3 bottom left, SC4 bottom right (reality)
....................................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 33. CC/SX-51 Existing Setting – SC1.1 left, SC1.2 right (reality) ................................... 49
Figure 34. CC/SX-51 Proposed Setting – SC1.1 left, SC1.2 right (reality) .................................. 51
Figure 35. OL/SX-51 Section 6.1 Setting – SC1.1 left, SC1.2 right (reality) ............................... 52
Figure 36. OL/SX-51 Section 6.1 Setting – SC2.1 left, SC2.2 right (reality) ............................... 52
Figure 37. OL/SX-51 SC1, 2, 3, 4 (simulated vs reality) .............................................................. 54
Figure 38. OL/SX-51 SC1 Close Up (simulated vs reality) .......................................................... 55
Figure 39. CC/SX-51 SC1.1 & SC1.2 (simulated vs reality) ........................................................ 55
Figure 40. OL/SX-51 SC1.1, SC1.2, SC2.1 & SC2.2 (simulated vs reality) ................................ 56
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Series 2 Equipment ......................................................................................................... 13

Table 2. Feeding Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 14
Table 3. Conductor Details............................................................................................................ 15
Table 4. Heyrod to Ordsall Lane HOIF Impedance ...................................................................... 16
Table 5. Ordsall Lane to Clifton Track Feeder Impedance ........................................................... 16
Table 6. Clifton to Lostock Junction Track Feeder Impedance .................................................... 17
Table 7. Lostock Junction to Blackrod Track Feeder Impedance ................................................. 17
Table 8. Blackrod to Euxton Junction Track Feeder Impedance .................................................. 17
Table 9. Ordsall Lane to Clifton AT Feeder Impedance ............................................................... 17
Table 10. Clifton to Lostock Junction AT Feeder Impedance ...................................................... 17
Table 11. Lostock Junction to Blackrod AT Feeder Impedance ................................................... 18
Table 12. Blackrod to Euxton Junction AT Feeder Impedance .................................................... 18
Table 13. Track Feeder Impedance Reach Settings ...................................................................... 21
Table 14. Fault Simulated Results – Normal Feeding .................................................................. 36
Table 15. Fault Simulated Results – SATS Bypassed .................................................................. 37
Table 16. Fault Simulated Results – No ADP ............................................................................... 41
Table 17. Fault Testing Details 12/12/18 & 01/01/19 ................................................................... 43
Table 18. OLE Base Impedance Changes ..................................................................................... 44
Table 19. Proposed Protection Setting Reach and Time Delay .................................................... 46
Table 20. Fault Testing Details 02/02/19 ...................................................................................... 48
Table 21. Protection Setting Changes at ATS Sites ...................................................................... 50
Table 22. Summary of Protection Changes ................................................................................... 53
viii
LIST OF PRINCIPLE SYMBOLS
A Ampere
ADP Accelerated Distance Protection
AEW Aerial Earth Wire
AT Autotransformer
ATFS Autotransformer Feeder Station
ATS Autotransformer Site
BT Booster Transformer
CT Current Transformer
ECR Electrical Control Room
GOOSE Generic Object-Oriented Substation Event
HV High Voltage
HOIF Heyrod to Ordsall Independent Feeder
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IED Intelligent Electronic Device
MATLAB Matrix Laboratory
NR Network Rail
NWEP North West Electrification Project
OLE Overhead Line Equipment
RMS Root Mean Square
RTU Remote Terminal Unit
RSC Return Screen Conductor
SATS Sectioning Autotransformer Site
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
TSC Track Sectioning Cabin
V Volts
VT Voltage Transformer
WCML West Coast Mainline
ix
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Project Definition
The North West Electrification Programme (NWEP) is planning to electrify three route sections
by the end of 2018. This programme is part of the national infrastructure plan to improve reliability
and, at the same time, reduce carbon emissions. Carbon emissions will be reduced by extending
electrification to replace the existing diesel-powered rolling stock. The electrification plan is split
up into the following phases:
• Phase 3: Preston to Blackpool
• Phase 4: Manchester to Preston via Bolton
• Phase 5: Manchester Victoria to Miles Platting (with an extension of electrification to
Stalybridge post 2020)
Some of the connecting routes have already been electrified as follows:

• West Coast Mainline (WCML) from Euston to Glasgow (fed from Weaver Junction ATFS
and Catterall FS)
• Manchester South and South East from Manchester Piccadilly to Hadfield, Glossop,
Prestbury (fed from Edgeley FS and Heald Green FS)
• Phase 1 and 2 from Liverpool to Manchester (fed from Willow Park ATFS)
Services on both Phase 3 (Blackpool branch) and Phase 4 (Manchester to Preston) were planned
to run for the first time in May, however, Phase 4 is delayed. The infrastructure must be available
to provide traction power to trains on both phases before the timetable change.
During the initiation of the programme, it was decided that Phase 4 would be fed from an
independent feeder cable from Heyrod ATFS to Ordsall Lane, which essentially becomes a central
Manchester feeder station. The Heyrod to Ordsall Independent Feeder cable (HOIF) will be
implemented in early 2019.
The new electrified line will be fed through Ordsall Lane ATFS once the HOIF from Heyrod ATFS
becomes live. In the meantime, before this happens, the route will be fed using Weaver ATFS via
Euxton Junction MPATS. Phase 4 will be fed using an Autotransformer feeding arrangement,
while Phase 5, for the near future, will be fed from the existing classic feeding arrangements.
1
The feeding sections will be commissioned and energised at different dates, meaning the feed will
change between different feeder stations operating with either autotransformers or classic feeding.
This infrastructure will require multiple protection setting groups to operate under different
feeding scenarios. This project will focus on Phases 4.
1.2. Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to calculate the protection settings covering the Phase 4 substations
between central Manchester and Preston. The settings will then be verified to determine they are
successful in discriminating against existing loads and future network expansion. A MATLAB
model will be developed that can simulate faults and loads. The verification of the protection
settings will be carried out using this model, as well as with real life short circuit testing.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Railway Electrification
The electrification of the railway has made significant progress since the first electrical railway
was demonstrated by Siemens at the Berlin Exhibition in 1879 [1]. The first electric tram system
was opened in Berlin only two years after the demonstration. The railways are electrified either
through overhead line equipment (OLE) or third/fourth rail and using either AC or DC. The project
this dissertation is based on is AC electrification via OLE.
AC railway electrification in the United Kingdom can currently be divided into the four systems
listed in historical order of introduction below [2]:
• Rail return
• Return conductor
• Booster transformer with return conductor (classic electrification)
• Autotransformer system
Two of the electrification systems listed above will be used in this project, these are classic
electrification and autotransformer systems.
2
Classic Electrification
AC railway electrification evolved from using the rails as a return conductor, to including a
separate conductor, to then adding booster transformers (BT). The reason for this change was to
decrease the current flowing through the rails and the general mass of the earth. If too much current
is returning via the rails, voltage will be induced onto adjacent cables (e.g. telecommunications),
which causes interference and a touch potential hazard [2].
2.1.1.1. Booster Transformer System

A diagram showing how booster transformer system works can be seen in Figure 1 [3].
Figure 1. Booster Transformer System
The BTs are connected between the overhead contact line, called catenary, and the return
conductor. The transformers have a ratio of 1:1, which forces the same amount of current to flow
in the catenary and return conductor, minimising the current flowing through the rails and ground.
The BTs are placed at approximately 3km intervals [3].
The disadvantage of using BTs is that the transformers increase the impedance of the circuit, this
lessens the power transferability. This causes a voltage drop which drives the requirement for
closer feeder stations [2].
2.1.1.2. Classic Feeding Arrangement

Feeder stations in classic systems are spaced at 30 to 40km [2] and fault currents are limited to 6
kA using a fault limiting reactor. Figure 2 shows a typical classic feeding diagram.
3
Figure 2. Typical Classic Feeding Diagram
The feeder station (FS) typically feeds two separate sections divided by a neutral section. The
reason for splitting the two sections, instead of paralleling them, is because the national grid
sources are fed from different phases. Paralleling the sections would result in a short circuit due to
the phase difference. A track sectioning cabin (TSC) is used to parallel the two catenary feeders
to reduce the impedance of the section. The mid-point track sectioning cabin (MPTSC) divides
two feeding sections using a neutral section, as well as providing the same benefits of a TSC.
Autotransformer System
A new type of railway electrification system has become popular for new electrification projects
in the United Kingdom, the new systems are autotransformer (AT) systems. Figure 3 below shows
how an AT system is designed [4].
Figure 3. Autotransformer System
4
The power is delivered to the train in the same way as in classic systems, with the trains still being
supplied with 25 kV. The difference being that the supply voltage of the system is of 50 kV, which
is split into two halves using ATs. The catenary remains at 25 kV and the rails at 0 V. The return
conductor is called an AT feeder and is also at 25 kV, but with an opposite phase of the catenary
[2].
The AT system results in less current running back through the entirety of the rails to the feeder
station. Instead, most of the current returns through the AT feeder as shown in Figure 3. The
voltage of the system is double the voltage used in a classic system, which results in lower losses.
2.1.2.1. Autotransformer Feeding Arrangement

AT systems in the United Kingdom have a distance of approximately 10 km between AT
substations. Since the voltage level is double the voltage used for classic systems, the distance
between feeder stations can be increased to approximately 100 km [4]. Fault currents are limited
to 12 kA for AT systems using a fault limiting reactor. Figure 4 shows a typical AT feeding
diagram.
Figure 4. Typical Autotransformer Feeding Diagram
The autotransformer feeder station (ATFS) typically feeds two separate sections divided by a
neutral section, similar to a classic arrangement. An autotransformer substation (ATS) is used to
parallel the two catenary and AT feeders to reduce the impedance of the section, as well as
5
providing a path for the rail current to flow to the AT feeders. A sectioning autotransformer
substation (SATS) is used to provide a location for separating two sections under alternative
feeding arrangements, as well as providing the same benefits of an ATS. The mid-point
autotransformer substation (MPATS) divides two feeding sections using a neutral section, as well
as providing the same benefits of an ATS.
2.2. Protection Systems
Protection systems exist to detect and deal with faults in an electrical network. The objective of a
protection system is to clear the faulted section while keeping as much of the un-faulted network
live as possible. The most notable equipment used in protection systems are protection devices,
also known as relays [5]. Protective relays are defined by the IEEE as “a relay whose function is
to detect defective lines or apparatus or other power conditions of an abnormal or dangerous nature
and to initiate appropriate control circuit action [6]”.
The most common types of protective relays found in the railway industry are electromechanical
and solid-state relays. Electromechanical relays were installed all over the United Kingdom with
the wave of electrification after the second world war. As new railway electrification and existing
renewals have taken place, these relays have been replaced by solid-state relays. The following
sub-sections go into further detail of three of the main types of protection being used in this project.
Distance Protection
The main difference between distance protection (also called impedance protection) and most
other types of protection is that distance protection uses both voltage and current to determine if
there is a fault. Distance protection relays work with one coil being energised by voltage, fed
through a voltage transformer (VT), and another by current, fed through a current transformer
(CT). The relay will then operate once the ratio of voltage by current falls under a specified value.
The distance of a fault is determined with the measured voltage. The lower the voltage, the closer
the fault location is [7].
Distance protection has been the most popular method for protecting railway catenaries due to its
ability to not accidentally trip for heavy loads, but still discriminatively trip for low fault currents.
In the railway, distance protection is divided into zones of protection. To determine what setting
6
should be assigned to each zone, the impedance of every section in the whole network must be
calculated. Figure 5 below shows how zones would typically be divided for an AT system.
Figure 5. Distance Protection Zone Coverage
Zone 1 is set to cover as much of the immediate section to the next substation as possible, without
detecting faults that are located outside of the section. The aim of the Zone 1 setting is to clear the
fault as fast as possible, so no time delay is set. Zone 2 will then need to cover the remaining part
of the circuit up to the next sectioning substation. Zone 3 is used to cover any gaps above Zone 2
to provide backup protection for other sections of the network.
The chosen values for all zones must not be so high that the relay can’t tell the difference between
a high impedance short circuit and a high load current. To calculate a maximum safe value, it is
necessary to examine the relationship between the maximum load the circuit will be subjected to
and the maximum fault impedances resulting from a short circuit. The best way to visualise the
relationship between the maximum loads and the zone coverage is to plot the zone settings and
expected loads. Figure 6 below shows an example of typical operating characteristics and loads
for a P44T MiCom Relay.
7
Figure 6. Distance Protection Operating Characteristic
Differential Protection
Differential protection is based on calculating the currents that are entering and leaving a protected
zone. If everything is working as it should, the current that enters must equal the current that leaves.
However, if a fault inside the protected zone occurs, the currents entering and leaving will not be
equal [8]. The principles of differential protection are shown below in Figure 7.
8
Figure 7. Differential Protection Principle
Two CTs are used, one at each side of the protected zone. These CTs have their secondary side
connected in series and are connected to the differential protection relay. If a fault external to the
protected zone occurs, as shown on the left in Figure 7, the currents will cancel each other out
since the current entering the protected zone is equal to the current leaving. If an internal fault
occurs, as shown on the right, the currents will add up letting the relay know it is time to trip [8].
A form of differential protection called high impedance differential protection is mainly used to
protect autotransformers and interconnector feeders in the railway environment. This type of
protection is used to mitigate one of the CTs from saturating during and fault external to the
protected zone [9]. The principles of high impedance differential protection are shown below in
Figure 8.
Figure 8. High Impedance Differential Protection
9
The secondary current created by the non-saturated CT will flow through the saturated CT if the
relay circuit has a high impedance. The voltage over the relay circuit (Vs) can then be calculated
using the secondary fault current and the relay circuit impedance. By adding an external
impedance, shown in Figure 8 as the stabilising resistor (Rs), the relay can become stable for this
voltage caused by the saturation. Increasing the impedance of the circuit causes the current flowing
through the relay to be less than its current setting. The required value for a stabilising resistor can
be calculated using the following equation.
𝑉𝑆 𝐼𝐹 (𝑅𝐶𝑇 + 2𝑅𝐿 )
𝑅𝑆𝑇 = =
𝐼𝑆 𝐼𝑆
Where:
• VS = required stabilising voltage [V],
• IF = Maximum secondary through-fault current [A]
• IS = Sensitivity current, typically set to 30% of the nominal current [A]
• RCT = CT secondary winding resistance [Ω]
• RL = secondary wiring resistance (single wire) [Ω]
Overcurrent Protection
This form of protection can be described as simply as the name describes it. In most cases when a
fault occurs on an AC railway, the fault current will be higher than the peak load current. The
overcurrent protection can be set to trip for a current higher than the load current [10]. Overcurrent
protection is typically set with a time delay and used as backup protection, in case the primary
protection does not trip in time.
2.3. Communication Protocols for Intelligent Electronic Devices
The protection systems described in section 2.2 would be a lot more useful if they could
communicate with each other and be accessed for monitoring and control remotely. Luckily,
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) exists, which is used for monitoring and
control. SCADA works by collecting information via a remote terminal unit (RTU) and
transferring the information through a communication network back to a central site. This
10
information is processed, and any necessary control or actions required are determined and carried
out [11].
A typical railway SCADA system contains the following components:

• RTUs which interface with the local Intelligent Electronic Devices (IEDs)
• A communication system used for transferring data, this project uses ethernet and fibre
• The central host/ Master Station/ Master Terminal Unit
• Human Machine Interface (HMI) used for remote operation of the system. In the railway,
the HMI would be the Electrical Control Room (ECR), which has control over large
electrical sections and many substations.
When the RTUs sends information to the master station, the sent data is identified by its unique
addressing. The RTU is not aware of what the addresses mean or what they are pointing to. The
master station, however, has a database with all the addresses and what they represent. This form
of communication is what is known as a protocol [11].
There are a number of different protocols currently in use. The two most commonly used protocols
in the railway industry in the United Kingdom are IEC 60870-5-103 and IEC 61850.
IEC 60870
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) created a standard transmission protocol in
1988. The reason for developing this protocol was to create an open protocol for communication
with SCADA. This created a standard message structure which allowed manufacturers to develop
products that could communicate with other manufacturers’ products [12]. The IEC 60870-5-103
substandard for transmission protocols for protection equipment is used for SCADA
communication in the railway environment.
IEC 61850
IEC 61850 was developed as an improvement from previous protocols, upgrading to modern
networking. The communication can be performed using the old serial communication as well as
TCP/IP using ethernet or fibre. This protocol also supports remote control, which eliminates the
need for hard wiring inside a substation. Another benefit is being able to transfer files from IEDs
11
instead of only reading live values, this allows for offline data collection which can quickly be
requested via SCADA [13].
2.4. Accelerated Distance Protection
On Phase 4, Accelerated Distance Protection (ADP) is used. ADP reduces the time taken to clear
a fault by sharing the occurrence of a fault between distance protection relays. The trip signal is
then sent to the appropriate CBs in that electrical circuit, even before the other relays have detected
a fault. Without APD, a relay detecting a fault outside of a Zone 1, would trip under Zone 2 or 3
with a time delay. With ADP the same relay would instead receive an intertrip from the relay
closest to the fault location which has tripped in Zone 1. This would significantly reduce the fault
clearance time for the faulted electrical section.
The relays located in different substation can communicate using generic object-oriented
substation event (GOOSE) messages via IEC 61850 [14].
12
3. SYSTEM DESIGN
3.1. Conditions of the System
The new traction power system is a two track 25 kV AC AT System with a return screen conductor
(RSC) configuration and aerial earth wire (AEW). The line consists of Series 2 type OLE
equipment. The details of the Series 2 equipment are given in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Series 2 Equipment
Parameters NR Series 2
Max OLE Line Speed 100 mph
Contact Wire 107 mm2 CuAg
Catenary Wire 19/2.1 mm BZII
Earth Wire 19/3.25 mm AL
AF Feeder 19/4.22 mm AL
The new electrified line will be fed through the Ordsall Lane ATFS Extension Building once the
HOIF from Heyrod ATFS becomes live. In the meantime, before this happens, the route will be
fed by Weaver ATFS via Euxton Junction MPATS. The relays used for the track feeders are
MiCOM P44T, and MiCOM P143 for the AT feeders. The voltage reference will be derived from
the line VT. The relays will be connected via a fibre optic cable to the SCADA.
The protection settings calculations in this project cover the sites between Ordsall Lane ATFS and
Euxton Junction MAPTS.
13
Feeding Scenarios
Several feeding scenarios have been considered in the calculation of the protection settings and
are listed in Table 2 below for information.
Table 2. Feeding Scenarios
Normal Reverse
Feeding Normal SATS
Feeding - no Power Flow -
Scenarios Feeding Bypassed
ADP no ADP
Ordsall Lane
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
ATFS
Clifton ATS Group 1
Lostock Junction
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
SATS
Blackrod ATS Group 1
Euxton Junction
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
MPATS
Normal Feeding arrangements will be fed from Heyrod FS through the HOIF to Ordsall Lane
ATFS. The SATS bypassed will be in the event Lostock SATS needs to be bypassed. This would
extend the protected section from Ordsall ATFS all the way to Euxton Junction MPATS. A group
is also required when intertripping is not available with ADP. The last group is for a reverse power
flow, in the event the feed is coming from Weaver Junction ATS, when intertripping is not
available with ADP.
14
Overhead Line Details

The Table below gives the type of OLE equipment relating to the different feeding sections. The
Series 2 per km impedance values have been modelled by Network Rail. The cable lengths have
been provided by Network Rail.
Table 3. Conductor Details
Section Real Reactive

Location Length OLE TYPE Impedance Impedance
(km) (Ω /km) (Ω /km)
Heyrod ATFS to
Ordsall Lane 16.165 630 mm2 HV Cable 0.039 0.168
ATFS
OLE Series 2, Double Rail

Ordsall Lane 0.13 0.33
Return
ATFS to Clifton 5.5
ATS
AT Feeder 0.11 0.46

Clifton ATS to 0.13 0.33
Return
Lostock Junction 14.132
SATS
AT Feeder 0.11 0.46

Lostock Junction 0.13 0.33
Return
SATS to Blackrod 5.746
ATS
AT Feeder 0.11 0.46

Blackrod ATS to 0.13 0.33
Return
Euxton Junction 12.443
MAPTS
AT Feeder 0.11 0.46
15
4. DETERMINATION OF THE PROTECTION

SETTINGS
The design is based on established practice and is required to be in accordance with Railway Group
Standards and Network Rail Company Standards relating to AC networks [15], [16], [17]. It was
suggested by NR that the use of a draft standard [17] was to be used to calculate the impedance
settings.
4.1. Distance Protection Calculations
This section outlines the methodology adopted for distance protection settings covered under the
scope of this dissertation. Distance protection has been the most proven method of protecting
railway catenaries, due to its inherent ability to remain stable for heavy load current, while being
able to discriminatively trip for quite low levels of fault current.
The first step in calculating protection settings is to calculate all the section impedances. This is
achieved by multiplying the unit impedance of the conductors with the length of the section to be
calculated. Using the values listed in section 3.1.2, the below section impedances can be calculated.
Table 4. Heyrod to Ordsall Lane HOIF Impedance

YR/IF1 & Ordsall Lane to Clifton Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω
OK/IF2 Ω/km
Cable Type 630 mm2 HV Cable 16.165 0.039 + j0.168 0.630 + j2.716
Feeder 2 x 400 mm2 HV Feeder Cable 0.034 0.031 + j0.083 0.001 + j0.003
Cable (OL)
Feeder 2 x 400 mm2 HV Feeder Cable 0.020 0.031 + j0.083 0.001 + j0.002
Cable (YR)
Section (R + jX) 0.632 + j2.720
Impedance (Z /∠) 2.79 ∠ 76.92°
Table 5. Ordsall Lane to Clifton Track Feeder Impedance

SX-50 & Ordsall Lane to Clifton Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω
SX-51 Ω/km
OLE Type OLE Series 2 5.500 0.130 + j0.330 0.715 + j1.815
Feeder 400 mm2 HV Feeder Cable 1.200 0.061 + j0.165 0.074 + j0.198
Cable (OL)
Cable (CC)
Section (R + jX) 0.795 + j2.030
Impedance (Z /∠) 2.18 ∠ 68.62°
16
Table 6. Clifton to Lostock Junction Track Feeder Impedance

SX-50 & Clifton to Lostock Junction Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω
SX-51 Ω/km
Cable (CC)
Cable (LK)
Section (R + jX) 1.856 + j4.713
Impedance (Z /∠) 5.07 ∠ 68.51°
Table 7. Lostock Junction to Blackrod Track Feeder Impedance

SX-52& Lostock Junction Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω
SX-53 to Blackrod Ω/km
Cable (LK)
Cable (BM)
Section (R + jX) 0.814 + j2.078
Impedance (Z /∠) 2.23 ∠ 68.60°
Table 8. Blackrod to Euxton Junction Track Feeder Impedance

SX-52 & Blackrod to Euxton Junction Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω
SX-53 Ω/km
Cable (BM)
Cable (EJ)
Section (R + jX) 1.685 + j4.288
Impedance (Z /∠) 4.61 ∠ 68.55°
Table 9. Ordsall Lane to Clifton AT Feeder Impedance

SX-AF50 & Ordsall Lane to Clifton Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω
SX-AF51 Ω/km
OLE Type 19/4.22 Aerial AT Wire 5.500 0.110 + j0.460 0.605 + j2.530
Cable (OL)
Cable (CC)
Section (R + jX) 0.685 + j2.745
Impedance (Z /∠) 2.83 ∠ 75.99°
Table 10. Clifton to Lostock Junction AT Feeder Impedance
17
SX-AF50 & Clifton to Lostock Junction Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω

SX-AF51 Ω/km
OLE Type 19/4.22 aerial AT wire 14.132 0.110 + j0.460 1.555 + j6.501
Cable (CC)
Cable (LK)
Section (R + jX) 1.573 + j6.550
Impedance (Z /∠) 6.74 ∠ 76.50°
Table 11. Lostock Junction to Blackrod AT Feeder Impedance

SX-AF52 & Lostock Junction Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω
SX-AF53 to Blackrod Ω/km
Cable (LK)
Cable (BM)
Section (R + jX) 0.699 + j2.825
Impedance (Z /∠) 2.91 ∠ 76.09°
Table 12. Blackrod to Euxton Junction AT Feeder Impedance

SX-AF52 & Blackrod to Euxton Junction Length km Unit (R + jX) (R + jX) Ω
SX-AF53 Ω/km
Cable (BM)
Cable (EJ)
Section (R + jX) 1.436 + j5.905
Impedance
The resulting section impedance diagram for Phase 4 is shown in Figure 9 below.
18
Ordsall Lane ATFS (OL) Lostock Junction SATS (LK) Euxton Junction MPATS (EJ)
Clifton ATS (CC) Blackrod ATS (BM)
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 Ω 5.07 Ω 2.23 Ω 4.61 Ω
SX-51 2.18 Ω 5.07 Ω 2.23 Ω 4.61 Ω
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 Ω 6.74 Ω 2.91 Ω 6.08 Ω
SX-AF51 2.83 Ω 6.74 Ω 2.91 Ω 6.08 Ω
Figure 9. Phase 4 Section Impedance Diagram
The distance protection zone coverage and associated time delay settings are presented below. The
method to obtain the protection settings has been based on an extract of NR/L3/ELP/27406/MOD3
AZ [17].
Zone 1
Zone 1 of a distance relay is used to protect as much of the feeding section as possible, without
tripping for faults located outside of the section. Using the same protection principles as classic
systems, a value of 85% of the impedance is used [17]. Relay settings at sectioning substations
looking towards the feeder station should cover the impedance to the next sectioning substation,
with a suitable margin. Relays at the ATS substations can only see part of the section under normal
feeding. To minimise the fault clearance times, the Zone 1 impedance setting is set to a high value.
ATFS & SATS-forward (including with ADP & MPATS & SATS-reverse with ADP)
• Zone-1 Reach: Assuming a 15% tolerance, the Zone 1 is set to 0.85 x section impedance.
MPATS & SATS-reverse (without ADP)

• Zone-1 Reach: The Zone 1 is set to 1.5 x of the total section impedance to the next
sectioning substation.
19
ATS (including with ADP)

• Zone-1 Reach: Zone 1 is set to 3 x of the total section impedance between the two closest
sectioning substations.
Zone 2
For ATFSs and SATSs looking away from the feeder station, Zone 2 needs to protect the remainder
of the circuit to the next sectioning substation. The chosen value should not extend beyond the
Zone 1 of the next section. Relay settings at sectioning substation looking towards the feeder
station should cover the maximum value.
All sites except ATS (with ADP)

• Zone-2 Reach: Zone 2 is set to the lower value of the following impedances, with a
minimum value of 1.5 x the total section impedance to the next sectioning substation:
o total section impedance to the next sectioning substation plus 0.7 x of the
section impedance of the section after.
o total section impedance to the next sectioning substation plus 0.7 x of the total
section impedance to the next sectioning substation.
ATFS & SATS-forward (without ADP)

• Zone-2 Reach: Zone 2 is set to the total section impedance to the next sectioning substation,
plus 0.7 x of the section impedance of the section after.
MPATS, SATS-reverse (without ADP)

• Zone-2 Reach: The Zone 2 is set to 3 x of the total section impedance to the next sectioning
substation.
ATS (including with ADP)

• Zone-2 Reach: Not used.
Zone 3
Zone 3 should cover any gaps remaining above Zone 2 to serve as a backup in case of a failed
relay in an adjacent section. The chosen value must not be so high that the relay can’t tell the
difference between high impedance short circuits and high load current. To determine a maximum
safe value, it is necessary to examine the relationship between load and fault impedances.
20
All sites (including with ADP)

• Zone-3 Reach: Maximum safe impedance value (80 Ω).
A standard value for Zone 3 reverse of 3 Ω (Primary) is applied on the applicable circuits [17].
The reverse resistive reach is incorporated into the settings to allow for regenerative breaking.
Distance Protection Settings Summary

The calculated protection settings for all sites can be found in Appendix A. Table 13 summarises
the track feeder impedance reach for each relay.
Table 13. Track Feeder Impedance Reach Settings
Normal Reverse
Normal SATS
Impedance Settings (Ω) Feeding - no Power Flow
Feeding Bypassed
ADP - no ADP
Zone 1 1.85 1.85 1.85 10.88

OL/SX-50 &
Zone 2 10.88 21.93 10.88 21.75
OL/SX-51
Zone 3 80 80 80 80
Zone 1 21.75
CC/SX-50 &
CC/SX-51
Zone 2 80
Zone 1 4.31 10.88 4.31

LK/SX-50 &
Zone 2 10.88 21.75 10.88
LK/SX-51
Zone 3 80 80 80
Zone 1 1.9 1.9 10.26

LK/SX-52 &
Zone 2 11.63 14.68 20.52
LK/SX-53
Zone 3 80 80 80
21
Normal Reverse
Normal SATS
Impedance Settings (Ω) Feeding - no Power Flow
Feeding Bypassed
ADP - no ADP
Zone 1 20.52
BM/SX-52 &
BM/SX-53
Zone 2 80
Zone 1 3.92 3.92 10.26 3.92

EJ/SX-52 &
Zone 2 10.39 21.14 20.52 10.39
EJ/SX-53
Zone 3 80 80 80 80
4.2. Effect of an AT System on Distance Protection
Using an AT System instead of classic electrification brings challenges when it comes to

protection. A study was carried out by Network Rail where an AT System was modelled [18].
Several protection related issues where identified in this study. Having ATs in the system influence
the impedance profile in the event of a fault, which makes the impedance profile nonlinear. Figure
10 shows an approximation of what the fault impedance profile looks like for the Phase 4 feeding
section.
22
Ordsall Lane ATFS Clifton ATS Lostock Junction SATS Blackrod ATS Euxton Junction MPATS
5.5 km 14.132 km 5.746 km 12.443 km
SX-AF50 SX-AF52
SX-AF51 SX-AF53
SX-51 SX-53
SX-51 SX-52
40
35
30
25
20
Fault Impedance (ohm)
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (km)
Ordsall Lane ATFS Clifton ATS
Lostock Junction SATS Blackrod ATS
Euxton Junction MPATS
Figure 10. AT System Fault Impedance Profile
The impedance profile is affected in different ways depending on where the feed is coming from.
Under normal feeding conditions, the power will be provided through Ordsall Lane ATFS feeding
towards Euxton Junction MPATS. The protection at Ordsall Lane ATFS can see a fault all the way
to Euxton Junction MPATS, as the protection is seeing towards the flow of power. Protection at
Lostock Junction SATS can see towards Euxton Junction MPATS, but it can only see up to the
next AT substation (Clifton ATS) in the other direction, as it is looking towards the power flow.
Protection in substations that are T feeding (Clifton ATS and Blackrod ATS) can’t see past the
next AT substation.
Another issue with AT Systems when it comes to protection is the transformer magnetising inrush
current caused by the ATs. When energising an autotransformer, the inrush current will often enter
23
the impedance protection zones and trip the circuit. This can also be caused, on infrequent
occasions, by the transformers inside of trains when they cross a neutral section. This issue can be
mitigated by using second harmonic blocking, which can be programmed in the distance protection
relays. This works by measuring the high second harmonic currents caused by a transformer being
energised, which when detected can then instructs the protection relay to block the distance
protection for a specified time.
24
5. SYSTEM MODELLING USING MATLAB

MATLAB is a powerful and very useful software which can be used for matrix manipulations,
plotting functions and data, implementing algorithms, etc [19]. Simulink is an add-on to MATLAB
which adds a graphical programming environment that can be used for modelling, simulating and
analysing systems [20]. This software can be used to model an AT System and create an algorithm
which mimics the functions of a distance protection relay.
5.1. Distance protection relay in MATLAB
The main distance protection tripping functionality of a P44T relay can be replicated in MATLAB.
The relay and circuit breaker characteristics were replicated inside of a subsystem in Simulink as
shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. P44T Main Subsystem Block
The main subsystem block has two inputs and two outputs. The protected circuit is connected in
through “A” and out through “a”. “TripR” and “TripS” are used for ADP intertripping by sending
and receiving the trip signal between relays. Inside of this subsystem is where the current and
voltage is measured, and the circuit breaker is located. This is shown in Figure 12.
25
Figure 12. P44T Interior Subsystem Block
The protected circuit is connected through the CB. The current and voltage is measured and
processed using a Fourier block which converts the analogue input into a magnitude and angle.
The voltage and current magnitudes and angles are then converted into an impedance value in
rectangular complex form. This is done using a MATLAB function block, the code for this
function is detailed in Appendix B. This impedance value is then sent to a tripping subsystem
block to process whether to trip or not. The trip signal is fed back to the CB and sent out for ADP
intertripping. The impedance value comes into input “a” and a trip signal comes out through output
“Trip” inside of the tripping subsystem block, which is shown in Figure 13.
26
Figure 13. P44T Tripping Subsystem Block
The rectangular complex impedance enters through input “a” and splits into three paths, one for
each protection zone. The impedance is analysed in MATLAB functions to verify if the impedance
is within the tripping zones. The MATLAB function code for the three zones in relay OL/SX-51
is detailed in Appendix B. If the impedance is within a zone, a trip signal is sent, and the
appropriate delay is added depending on the zone. If the impedance momentarily enters then leaves
zones 2 or 3, the trip delay is reset.
5.2. AT System in MATLAB
The Phase 4 AT System was modelled using Simulink. The model is shown in Figure 14.
27
Figure 14. Phase 4 AT System Model in Simulink
28
The model has been designed to simulate in discrete time with time samples of 10 µs. Heyrod
ATFS has been simplified to two voltage sources of 25 kV with opposite phases. The fault level
is limited by the transformer impedance, which is shown as “Zt” and “Zt2”. The sum of the
reactance values is 4.2 Ω, which limits the fault current to approximately 12 kA. The 16 km HOIF
is modelled as an impedance value connecting the supply to Ordsall Lane ATFS.
Ordsall Lane ATFS and the rest of the AT sites are modelled using the same principles. ATs are
connected between the +25 kV and -25 kV circuits, and distance relay subsystems are connected
to each circuit. The ADP trip logic is shown at the bottom of Figure 14. There are four intertripping
areas, one for each circuit (SX-50, SX-51, SX-52 and SX-53). If any relay within an ADP area
trips, the trip is sent to the remaining relays to isolate the whole circuit from the rest of the system.
29
6. RESULTS AND STUDIES
6.1. Load Flow Studies using MATLAB
The maximum planned root mean square (RMS) load current is of 520 A. This is according to the
proposed NR timetable once Phase 4 is commissioned. The proposed trains for Phase 4 have an
average power rating of around 3.75 MW, equating to a current consumption of 150 A. The
following two sections detail the load flow during normal feeding as well as investigating what
the required load would be to cause a distance protection relay to trip.
Loads - Normal Feeding

Four trains were used to simulate the maximum planned load under normal feeding. This brings
the current consumption to 600 A, which provides a safety margin above the maximum planned
load of 520 A. The first load flow simulation contains one train at Ordsall Lane ATFS, one at
Clifton ATS, one at Blackrod ATS and one at Euxton Junction MPATS. The first two trains are in
section SX-51 and the second two in section SX-53. Figure 23 illustrates the load currents from
the first simulation.
Figure 15. Normal Feeding Load Currents
The analogue current values are shown at the top and the RMS current magnitudes at the bottom.
The total measured load current is of 550 A. At OL/SX-51, a current of 350 A is measured and 70
30
A at EJ/SX-53. An additional load flow simulation was carried out with all four trains located
between Ordsall Lane ATFS and Clifton ATS. This resulted in a higher current of 420 A seen at
OL/SX-51. The resulting impedance plots for OL/SX-51 for both simulations are shown in Figure
16.
Figure 16. Normal Feeding Impedance Plots for OL/SX-51 (simulated)
The left impedance plot is from the first simulation and the right plot is from the second simulation.
The load impedance decreases as the load current through OL/SX-51 increases. The load
impedances are located a comfortable distance outside of the protection zones. This leaves plenty
of room for future train additions to the timetable.
Maximum Possible Load

As demonstrated in the previous section, there is sufficient space for more trains in the Phase 4
system. In order to find the required load which would trip a distance protection relay, three load
scenarios were modelled. The first simulation contains one train at each substation in each section,
a total of ten trains. The resulting load was measured at 1.2 kA, with the load at OL/SX-51 being
600 A. An additional two trains were added between Ordsall Lane ATFS and Clifton ATS in the
second simulation. Adding these trains brought the total load up to 1.6 kA with the load at OL/SX-
51 being 800 A. The resulting impedance plot for OL/SX-51 is shown in Figure 17.
31
Figure 17. Maximum Load Impedance Plots for OL/SX-51 (simulated)
The load impedances are now considerably closer to the distance protection zones. Although
discrimination can be achieved with this load, the currents would exceed the ratings of the
conductors in the system.
As a theoretical exercise, trains were added to increase the load and test the limit of the distance
protection. This exercise consists of twenty trains between Ordsall Lane ATFS and Clifton ATS
on circuit SX-51. One additional train is located between Ordsall Lane ATFS and Clifton ATS on
circuit SX-50. Figure 18 shows the load currents of this theoretical exercise.
Figure 18. Maximum Possible Load Currents
32
Most of the load current flows through OL/SX-51 while a smaller portion flows through the longer
route of OL/SX-50. Once OL/SX-51 trips, the current flowing through OL/SX-50 momentarily
increases as it is now supplying the full load. Then, as section SX-51 intertrips with the help of
ADP, the current in OL/SX-50 decreases to only supplying the train located in section SX-50. To
better understand the tripping scenario, it is best to look at the impedance plots in Figure 19.
Figure 19. Maximum Impedance Plots (simulated)
The left plot is for OL/SX-51 and the right plot is for OL/SX-50. The load was high enough to be
located inside the OL/SX-51 Zone 2 quadrilateral. This caused the whole SX-51 circuit to trip with
the help of ADP. The excessive load is isolated from the system and only the train at OL/SX-50
remains which uses 150 A. The load flowing through OL/SX-50 momentarily enters Zone 2 after
OL/SX-50 trips, but then leaves Zone 2 when the whole SX-51 circuit is then isolated.
33
6.2. Fault Studies using MATLAB
Faults can be applied anywhere in the Simulink model by using a fault block as shown in Figure
20.
Figure 20. Simulating a Fault in Simulink
An OLE to earth fault or an OLE to AT feeder fault can be simulated. After a fault has been
simulated, the impedance diagram can be plotted for each relay using the MATLAB code detailed
in Appendix B.
Studies are detailed in the sections below for faults during normal feeding, SATS bypassed and no
ADP. Three cases will be simulated for each fault study. First, a fault on circuit SX-51 at Clifton
ATS, the second on circuit SX-51 at Lostock Junction SATS, and the third on circuit SX-52 at
Euxton Junction MPATS. The fault locations are shown in Figure 21.
Ordsall Lane ATFS Clifton ATS Lostock Junction SATS Blackrod ATS Euxton Junction MPATS
5.5 km 14.132 km 5.746 km 12.443 km
SX-AF50 SX-AF52
SX-AF51 SX-AF53
SX-51 SX-53
SX-51
SX-50 SX-52
40
35
30 Figure 21. Simulated Fault Locations

25
20
Impedance (ohm)
15 34
10
5
Faults - Normal Feeding

Under normal feeding conditions ADP will be used for intertripping. This means that as soon as a
fault is detected, the whole section will quickly be isolated. Figure 22 shows the fault currents seen
at each relay in the faulted circuit for the first fault simulation.
Figure 22. Normal Feeding First Fault Current
All fault currents are cleared at the same time due to the intertripping via ADP. The impedance
plots for the relays in the faulted section can be seen in Figure 23 for the first fault simulation.
35
Figure 23. Normal Feeding First Fault Impedance Plots (simulated)
The top left plot is for OL/SX-51, the top right plot is for CC/SX-51 and the bottom plot is for
LK/SX-51. The fault is picked up in Zone 1 at Clifton ATS and in Zone 2 for Ordsall Lane ATFS
and Lostock SATS, as anticipated. As soon as Clifton ATS trips, the trip is forwarded using ADP
to the other two relays in the section. Appendix C contains higher quality plots for the above fault
simulation as well as the plots for faults two and three. The resulting trip times for the three fault
locations are detailed in Table 14.
Table 14. Fault Simulated Results – Normal Feeding
Fault Trip Time (ms)

Fault
Location
OL/SX-51 CC/SX-51 LK/SX-51
SC1 Clifton 50 50 50
SC2 Lostock 50 50 50
36
LK/SX-52 BM/SX-52 EJ/SX-52
SC3 Euxton 50 50 50
The faults were cleared at the same time by all circuit breakers in the faulted section in under 50
ms.
Faults - SATS Bypassed

The simulations for faults with the SATS Bypassed resulted in similar tripping times as normal
feeding. The change observed when Lostock Junction SATS is bypassed is that the SATS is no
longer paralleling the feeders and that circuits SX-50 and SX-52 (also SX-51 and SX-53) become
one circuit. This means that ADP will trip all the relays in the extended section from Ordsall Lane
ATFS to Euxton Junction MPATS. The impedance plots for the fault simulations with the SATS
bypassed can be found in Appendix C. The resulting trip times for the three fault locations are
detailed in Table 15.
Table 15. Fault Simulated Results – SATS Bypassed

Fault
Location
OL/SX-51 CC/SX-51 BM/SX-53 EJ/SX-53
SC1 Clifton 50 50 50 50
SC2 Lostock 50 50 50 50
OL/SX-50 CC/SX-50 BM/SX-52 EJ/SX-52
SC3 Euxton 50 50 50 50
Faults - No ADP
Without using ADP, isolating a fault section will take longer as there is no intertripping. Figure 24
shows the fault currents seen at relays in the faulted circuit for the first fault simulation.
37
Figure 24. No ADP First Fault Current
Due to the fault being located at Clifton ATS, all three sites trip under Zone 1. The fault seen at
OL/SX-51 is initially in Zone 2 but quickly moves into Zone 1. As all the relays in the faulted
circuit tripped under Zone 1, the impedance plots are nearly identical to the first fault under normal
feeding. The plots can be seen in Appendix C. Figure 25 shows the fault currents seen at relays in
the faulted circuit for the second fault simulation.
Figure 25. No ADP Second Fault Current
38
With the fault being located at Lostock Junction SATS, the fault is located in Zone 2 at OL/SX-
51, causing the trip times to be extended. The impedance plots for this fault are shown in Figure
26.
Figure 26. No ADP Second Fault Impedance Plots (simulated)
The top left plot is for OL/SX-51, the top right plot is for CC/SX-51 and the bottom plot is for
LK/SX-51. The fault is cleared at Lostock Junctions SATS and Clifton ATS under Zone 1. At
Ordsall Lane ATFS, the fault enters Zone 2 and momentarily exits causing the Zone 2 timer to
reset. The fault leaves Zone 2 after LK/SX-51 trips then re-enters once CC/SX-51 trips. This is
caused by the changes in fault current distribution seen at OL/SX-51 when the other relays trip.
Figure 27 shows the fault currents seen at relays in the faulted circuit for the third fault simulation.
39
Figure 27. No ADP Third Fault Current
This fault is similar to the previous simulation in that the trip time is extended at Lostock Junction
SATS as it sees the fault in Zone 2. The impedance plots for this fault are shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28. No ADP Third Fault Impedance Plots (simulated)
40
The top left plot is for OL/SX-50, the top right plot is for LK/SX-52, the bottom left plot is for
BM/SX-52 and the bottom right plot is for EJ/SX-52. The plot for OL/SX-50 is shown to
demonstrate that for a fault outside of its circuit, the fault impedance will remain in Zone 3. The
fault trips under Zone 1 at Blackrod ATS and Euxton Junction MPATS and under Zone 2 at
Lostock Junction SATS. The resulting trip times for the three fault locations are detailed in Table
16.
Table 16. Fault Simulated Results – No ADP

Fault
Location
SC1 Clifton 60 50 70
SC2 Lostock 250 75 45
LK/SX-52 BM/SX-52 EJ/SX-52
SC3 Euxton 150 70 50
Load with a Fault in Adjacent Circuit

To demonstrate network stability, a fault was simulated at EJ/SX-53 with two trains located in
circuit SX-51. Figure 29 shows the fault current and the current seen at OL/SX-51.
41
Figure 29. Load and Fault Current
After the fault is cleared from circuit SX-53, the current seen at OL/SX-51 returns to the normal
load current expected for two running trains. The impedance plot for OL/SX-51 is shown in Figure
30.
Figure 30. Load and Fault Impedance Plots (simulated)
The fault impedance can be seen momentarily entering Zones 2 and 3 before circuit SX-53 trips.
When circuit SX-53 trips, the impedance returns to the expected load impedance of two trains.
The outcome of this case is very similar to the theoretical case looked at in section 6.1.2. This is
to be expected as a fault behaves similarly to a very high load.
42
6.3. Initial Short Circuit Testing Results
Real life short circuit tests were carried out approximately 300 m from Lostock SATS resulting in
delayed Zone 2 trips at Ordsall Lane as listed in Table 17.
Table 17. Fault Testing Details 12/12/18 & 01/01/19
Trip Time (ms)

Fault
OL/SX-51 LK/SX-51
SC1 - 12/12/18 03:05 332 -
SC2 - 12/12/18 03:21 338 -
SC3 - 12/12/18 04:01 281 -
SC4 - 01/01/19 17:18 291 43
These trip times are over the 250 ms maximum fault duration limit in Railway Group Standard
GL/RT1210 for a 12 kA fault [21]. This means that the current distance protection settings are not
compliant and need changing to reduce the trip times to under 250 ms.
The electrical section being tested was operating under normal feeding without ADP configured.
However, the feed into Ordsall Lane ATFS at the time of short circuit testing was temporarily
from Parkside Grid Supply Point via Willow Park ATFS, which due to commissioning delays was
running as a Classic System. Phase 4 was therefore a single pole supply with the Autotransformers
between Ordsall Lane ATFS and Euxton MPATS creating a negative pole. This type of feeding is
generally known as AT Lite. There is minimal modelling of this type of feeding scenario for the
area in question. This means there is an uncertainty regarding the behaviour of the system under
fault scenarios. The assumption that the system behaves as a full AT system when the negative
pole is connected to the Feeder Station cannot be assured.
The current protection grading philosophy for AT feeding without ADP that has been implemented
failed to result in a coordinated trip under 250 ms. The exact timeline of the trips during the fault
43
are not available, however the behaviour of the fault over multiple short circuit events gives
confidence that the relay operation at the different substations is consistent.
The fault timeline is detailed below:

1. Fault 300 m south of Lostock SATS on section SX-51 (feeding from Ordsall Lane ATFS)
a. Lostock SATS LK/SX-51 Zone 1 trip start
b. Clifton ATS CC/SX-51 – Protection block second harmonic inrush
c. Ordsall Lane ATFS OL/SX-51 Zone 2 start
2. Lostock SATS LK/SX-51 trips
a. Fault impedance changes
b. Ordsall Lane ATFS OL/SX-51 Zone 2 backs off
c. Clifton ATS CC/SX-51 – Protection block second harmonic inrush backs off
d. Clifton ATS CC/SX-51 – Zone 1 trip start
3. Clifton ATS CC/SX-51 trips
a. Fault impedance changes
b. Ordsall Lane ATFS OL/SX-51 Zone 2 start
4. Ordsall Lane ATFS OL/SZ-51 trips
Proposed Temporary Changes

The second harmonic blocking logic was proposed to be removed from all sites as this appeared
to be the reason for the delay at Clifton ATS. It was not certain that the delay was caused by the
second harmonic blocking due to the event times not being able to be aligned as the time
synchronising was not working.
Series 2 OLE impedances were modelled for another project (Midland Mainline Electrification
Project). These impedance values are higher than the values used in this project. This could mean
that the protection settings are not covering their intended zones. The protection settings were
recalculated to account for this change in base impedance.
Table 18. OLE Base Impedance Changes
Changes Old New
OLE Series 2, Double Rail 0.13 0.179

Return
44
Real Impedance (Ω /km)
OLE Series 2, Double Rail 0.33 0.422

Return
Reactive Impedance (Ω /km)
The operation tripping time for the Zone 1 trips at Lostock SATS and Clifton ATS were reviewed
to see if any reduction in the Zone 2 delay time for Ordsall Lane ATFS could be achieved. The
circuit breakers installed at Lostock SATS and Clifton ATS are ABB FSKII type that have an
operating time (opening) of ≤ 45 ms [22]. With a relay operating time of 30 ms [23], the calculated
Zone 1 operating time = relay time (≤ 30 ms) + CB opening time (≤ 45 ms) = 75 ms. It was
therefore deemed appropriate to reduce the Zone 2 delay time without risking discrimination issues
with Zone 1.
The fault impedance seen by the relay changes as the distribution system is altered by the operation
of protective devices. Until Clifton ATS and Lostock SATS have tripped, the fault is fed by parallel
lines (SX-50 / SX-AF51 / SX-AF50) via the busbar and Autotransformers at each site. As
mentioned previously, lack of detailed modelling of this scenario results in an unknown behaviour
of the distribution network. Clifton ATS is 5.5 km from Ordsall Lane ATFS and Lostock SATS is
14.132 km from Ordsall Lane ATFS. Clifton ATS is not located as a mid-point between Ordsall
lane ATFS and Lostock SATS as per “base” design theory of an AT System.
Observation of the Ordsall Lane ATFS OL/SX-51 disturbance record sees the fault impedance
move out of the Zone 2 area as can be seen in Figure 31.
45
Stage 2
CC/SX-51 Trips
Stage 1
LK/SX-51 Trips
Stage 2
CC/SX-51 Trips
Stage 1
LK/SX-51 Trips
Figure 31. SC1 top left, SC2 top right, SC3 bottom left, SC4 bottom right (reality)
The Zone 2 reach is based on 150% of the sectional impedance between Ordsall Lane ATFS and
Lostock ATFS. An increase in the Zone 2 reach would ensure the fault is maintained within Zone
2. The proposed change below would keep the fault in zone as per the disturbance record data.
Table 19. Proposed Protection Setting Reach and Time Delay
Changes Old New
ATFS Z2 Time delay (ms) 150 120
46
ATFS Z2 Reach 150% 200%
Figure 32 demonstrates that the proposed changes would ensure the fault remains inside the Zone
2 reach.
Stage 2
CC/SX-51 Trips
Stage 1
LK/SX-51 Trips
Stage 2
CC/SX-51 Trips
Stage 1
LK/SX-51 Trips
Figure 32. New Setting - SC1 top left, SC2 top right, SC3 bottom left, SC4 bottom right (reality)
However, increasing the impedance reach increases the risk of nuisance tripping as the Lostock
SATS Zone 1 reach is relatively short to Blackrod ATS (85% section length of 5.746 km).
47
Therefore, the Lostock SATS and Ordsall Lane ATFS Zone 2 reaches will overlap and
discrimination will not be achieved.
When looking at the full AT system fault impedance profiles, as described in section 4.2, the
impedance is not linear between ATS sites. With the fault located only 300 m from Lostock SATS,
it is reasonable to assume that this point is not the maximum fault impedance to be observed from
Ordsall Lane ATFS. However, as Lostock SATS track feeder would operate in Zone 1, this would
unparallel the fault (beyond the fault) and the fault will be seen radially from Clifton ATS.
Therefore, the fault impedance seen when Lostock SATS has tripped, and Clifton ATS remains
paralleling, is the maximum fault impedance. Any fault towards Clifton ATS will see a reducing
fault impedance as the feed is radial.
6.4. Second Short Circuit Testing Results
Additional real-life short circuit testing was carried on Saturday 2nd of February to verify the
changes from the first short circuit testing. This testing covered two short circuit tests undertaken
at a fault location near to Clifton ATS and two short circuit tests at a fault location 300m from
Lostock SATS, resulting in the trip times listed in Table 20.
Table 20. Fault Testing Details 02/02/19

Fault
Location
SC1.1 - 02/02/19 04:48 Lostock 193.5 103 52.1
SC1.2 - 02/02/19 05:32 Lostock 193.8 103.4 54.4
SC2.1 - 02/02/19 06:18 Clifton 152.8 53.1 51.5
SC2.2 - 02/02/19 04:48 Clifton 154.3 54.8 53.7
48
ATS Track Feeders

Following the initial short circuit tests carried out in January (detailed in section 6.3), the delayed
trip times of Clifton ATS track feeders were assumed to be caused by the second harmonic
blocking logic within the PSL file delaying the Zone 1 trip. This could not be verified due to the
disturbance records not being recorded during the fault. Following the latest testing, with
disturbance records configured to record, it was discovered that this delay was not caused by the
second harmonic blocking logic as suggested in section 6.3.1.
The latest testing revealed that for faults furthest away from Clifton ATS (at Lostock SATS), the
trip times were still delayed following the removal of second harmonic blocking logic. The
recorded fault data for the two short circuit tests near Lostock SATS during the latest testing can
be seen in Figure 33.
Initial Fault
Locus
Fault Locus after

LK/SX-51 trips
Figure 33. CC/SX-51 Existing Setting – SC1.1 left, SC1.2 right (reality)
The initial fault impedance is outside Zone 1. The impedance reach is not within range and the
fault is offset from the characteristic angle. The fault enters Zone 3, but it then exits the Zone 3
reach until a trip at LK/SX-51 occurs. After LK/SX-51 trips, the fault impedance decreases and
trips under Zone 1. The delay from fault initiation to the fault impedance entering Zone 1 was the
49
reason Clifton ATS was seeing an overall delayed trip. It was proposed to increase the impedance
reach. This applied for all circuits at Clifton ATS and Blackrod ATS.
Increasing the resistive reach would cause the ATS to trip for all faults in the adjacent sections.
This would not to not have an effect on passenger operation as the ATS will automatically restore
for any nuisance faults. Voltage regulation may not be met between the tripping of the ATS site
and the closing of the breaker. However, the system is designed to ensure full voltage regulation
with one AT out of service, meaning that during normal service running there should be no service
effecting issues during the auto restore time of 3 seconds.
The following changes shown in Table 21 were proposed to extend the Zone 1 reach.
Table 21. Protection Setting Changes at ATS Sites
Changes Old New
Z1 Ground Reach 300% 80 Ω
The impedance plots using the updated settings can be seen in Figure 34.
50
Figure 34. CC/SX-51 Proposed Setting – SC1.1 left, SC1.2 right (reality)
It can be seen that with the proposed settings, the trip times would reduce at Clifton ATS as the
fault would immediately enter Zone 1.
Ordsall Lane ATFS Track Feeders

The latest testing demonstrated that the trip times for circuits OL/SX-50, OL/SX-51, OL/SX-AF50
& OL/SX-AF51 were under 250 ms and compliant with GL/RT1210 using the proposed settings
in section 6.3. The results of the first two short circuit tests carried out at Lostock SATS can be
seen in Figure 35.
51
Stage 2
CC/SX-51 Trips
Stage 1
LK/SX-51 Trips
Figure 35. OL/SX-51 Section 6.1 Setting – SC1.1 left, SC1.2 right (reality)
The fault enters Zone 2, but the fault impedance increases when LK/SX-51 trips, as Lostock SATS
is no longer paralleling the fault path. The fault impedance decreases again when CC/SX-51 trips.
The fault impedance no longer exits Zone 2, meaning the timer does not reset and a trip following
the 120 ms delay occurs.
The results of the last two short circuit test carried out at Clifton ATS can be seen in Figure 36.
CC/SX-51 Trips
LK/SX-51 Trips
Figure 36. OL/SX-51 Section 6.1 Setting – SC2.1 left, SC2.2 right (reality)
52
The fault enters Zone 2 and continues to decrease until it trips under Zone 1. The fault impedance
does not increase as it did during SC1.1 and SC1.2 since LK/SX-51 and CC/SX-51 trip
simultaneously.
By increasing the impedance reach at Clifton ATS and Blackrod ATS to include the initial fault
impedance seen for SC1.1 and SC1.2, the ATS will trip in the same time frame as Lostock
SATS/Euxton MPATS. Therefore, the feeding substation (Ordsall Lane ATFS/Lostock SATS)
will not see the fault travel out of Zone 2. The conclusion from section 6.3 was that the excessive
total tripping time at Ordsall Lane ATFS was due to Zone 2 timers resetting following the initial
Lostock SATS tripping, without Clifton ATS tripping.
The results of the last two short circuit testing trips demonstrate that reducing the Zone 1 trip time
at Clifton ATS will also reduce the trip time at Ordsall Lane ATFS and prevent the fault impedance
altering between Lostock trip and Clifton trip. This means that the settings proposed in section
6.4.1 for the ATS sites will result in faster trips at Ordsall Lane ATFS as well.
It was noted that the proposed settings in section 6.3 used at Ordsall Lane ATFS would bring an
increased risk of nuisance tripping. Reducing the reach of the protection removes the
discrimination issues identified in the section 6.3. It is therefore proposed to remove the proposed
settings in section 6.3 at Ordsall Lane ATFS and replace them with the original settings calculated
in 4.1.
This would mean reverting back to the original Series 2 OLE impedances as well as the Zone 2
reach and time delay as shown in Table 22.
Table 22. Summary of Protection Changes
Previously
Changes Original
Proposed
OLE Series 2, Double Rail Return 0.13 0.179

Real Impedance (Ω /km)
OLE Series 2, Double Rail Return 0.33 0.422

Reactive Impedance (Ω /km)
53
ATFS Z2 Time delay (ms) 150 120
ATFS Z2 Reach 150% 200%
Using the original protections settings at Ordsall Lane ATFS with the changes to the settings at
Clifton ATS will result in trip times similar to SC2.1 and SC2.2.
6.5. Simulated Results vs Reality
The purpose of this section is to compare the real life short circuit tests covered in sections 6.3 and
6.4 with the MATLAB model. The AT System model was adjusted to resemble an AT Lite railway
with a feeding arrangement modelled as similar as possible to the real-life scenario. The impedance
plots for short circuits 1, 2, 3 and 4 from section 6.3 are shown in Figure 37.
Figure 37. OL/SX-51 SC1, 2, 3, 4 (simulated vs reality)
54
All four short circuit results are similar, as the fault takes place in the same location. Figure 38
shows a close up of short circuit 1.
Figure 38. OL/SX-51 SC1 Close Up (simulated vs reality)
As can be seen, the real fault greatly resembles the simulated fault. The biggest difference is the
angle in which the fault approaches the protection zones. The next impedance plots shown in
Figure 39 are from short circuits 1.1 and 1.2 in section 6.4.
Figure 39. CC/SX-51 SC1.1 & SC1.2 (simulated vs reality)
Again, the simulated results resemble the real-life tests with the exception of the initial fault
impedance. A possible explanation to this difference could be due to the impedance of the short-
55
circuiting device used for the real-life tests. In the simulated model, an ideal short circuit with no
impedance is used However, attempts were made to add different impedance values to the
simulated fault location, but adding an impedance only distorted the fault impedance within the
protection zones. Figure 40 shows the impedance plots at OL/SX-51 for the four short circuits in
6.4.
Figure 40. OL/SX-51 SC1.1, SC1.2, SC2.1 & SC2.2 (simulated vs reality)
The plots show the same similarities and differences between the simulations and reality as the
previous plots. The important aspect is that the simulated and real short circuit test results share a
very similar path once they are inside the protection zones. This, in addition to the trip times being
nearly identical in both cases, has demonstrated that the MATLAB model can be successfully used
to accurately simulate distance protection.
56
7. CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this project is to calculate the protection settings covering the Phase 4 substations
between central Manchester and Preston and to verify that the settings are successful in
discriminating against existing loads and future network expansion. The protection settings were
calculated successfully in compliance with Network Rail Standards.
The Phase 4 AT System and distance protection relays were modelled using MATLAB and
Simulink as a tool to simulate loads and faults. Developing this software model proved to be a
useful tool for verifying protection settings and can be used for future protection studies. As
demonstrated in the load flow studies, there is enough space for additional trains to be added to
the timetable without causing nuisance tripping. The future load increases are however dependent
on the rating of the conductors and electrical components in the system. The fault studies
demonstrated that the proposed settings will clear the faulted circuit under the required trip times
for all feeding scenarios.
Real life short circuit tests were carried out to verify that the settings were adequate. A temporary
feeding arrangement consisting of an AT Lite System with no ADP was used while short circuit
testing. Temporary changes to the normal feeding with no ADP settings group were identified as
necessary. The temporary settings were tested and resulted in a protection system in compliance
with Network Rail Standards. The real-life short circuit tests were also used to successfully verify
the MATLAB model.
7.1. Future Work
The Simulink model is greatly simplified in comparison to the real-world Phase 4 system. The
modelled distance relays are accurate representations of real distance relays, but the AT system is
not modelled in enough detail to be completely confident in the simulated results. This model can
be designed with greater detail, containing all the individual conductors, for more accurate results.
The trains have been simulated as being static loads, future work can be carried out to model
variable line impedances to simulate a moving train.
57
8. REFERENCES
[1] C. Hynson, A History of Railroads, Gareth Stevens Publishing, 2005, p. 22.

[2] “NR/GN/TEL/31106 Overview of Electromagnetic Coupling Between Traction Systems and
Telecommunications Cables,” Network Rail, 2009.
[3] Engineering Directorate, “Engineering Recommendations P24 AC Traction Supplies to
British Rail,” Energy Networks Association, London, 1984.
[4] F. Nyberg and R. Pollard, “Network Rail A Guide to Overhead Electrification 132787-ALB-
GUN-EOH-000001,” Alan Baxter & Associates LLP, London, 2015.
[5] S. G. Perez, M. S. Sachdev and T. S. Sidhu, “Modeling relays for use in power system
protection studies,” in Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Saskatoon, Canada, 2005.
[6] J. Radatz, The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, New York,
USA: IEEE Standards Office , 1997.
[7] B. Kasztenny and D. Finney, “Fundamentals of Distance Protection,” in 2008 61st Annual
Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, College Station, 2008.
[8] G. Ziegler, Numerical Differential Protection Principles and Applications, Berlin: Erlangen:
Publicis Corporate Publishing, 2012.
[9] H. Miller, J. Burger, N. Fischer and B. Kasztenny, “Modern Line Current Differential
Protection Solutions,” in 63rd Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, College
Station, TX, 2010.
[10] E. Csanyi, “Fundamental overcurrent, distance and differential protection principles,”
Electrical Engineering Portal, 2016.
[11] Office of the Manager National Communications System, “Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) Systems,” Communication Technologies Inc, Chantilly, Virginia,
2004.
[12] G. Clarke, D. Reynders and E. Wright, Practical Modern SCADA Protocols: DNP3, 60870.5
and Related Systems, Oxford, UK: Newnes An imprint of Elsevier, 2004, pp. 1-7, 170.
[13] J. Horalek, J. Matyska and V. Sobeslav, “Communication Protocols in Substation
Automationand IEC 61850 based proposal,” in IEEE 14th International Symposium on
Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI), Budapest, 2013.
58
[14] M. A. Aftab, S. Roostaee, . S. Suhail Hussain, . I. Ali, M. S. Thomas and S. Mehfuz,

“Performance evaluation of IEC 61850 GOOSE-based inter-substation communication for
accelerated distance protection scheme,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol.
12, no. 18, pp. 4089-4098, 2018.
[15] “120288-PSU-EP-SPE-005000 25kV Electrification Protection and Control Technical
Requirements,” Network Rail, 2015.
[16] “NR/GN/ELP/27043 Protection standards and methods of calculation for 25 kV ac
electrified lines,” Network Rail, 2006.
[17] “NR/L3/ELP/27406/MOD 3 DRAFT P25 - Engineering Deliverable Requirements for
Electrical Power Asset Design: Autotransformer Electrification Impedance Protection,”
Network Rail, 2017.
[18] D. B. Hewings, J. Chen and A. P. Storey, “Application of a New Distance Protection Scheme
to a Single-Pole Autotransformver Electrification System on the UK West Coast Main Line
Railway,” in 2008 IET 9th International Conference on Developments in Power System
Protection (DPSP 2008), Glasgow, UK, 2008.
[19] “MATLAB,” MathWorks, [Online]. Available:
https://uk.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html. [Accessed 26 April 2019].
[20] “Simulink,” MathWorks, [Online]. Available:
https://uk.mathworks.com/help/simulink/index.html. [Accessed 26 April 2019].
[21] “Railway Group Standard GL/RT1210 - AC Energy Subsystem and Interfaces to Rolling
Stock Subsystem,” Network Rail, 2014.
[22] “FSK II + Vacuum Breaker Datasheet - Single- or two-phase outdoor vacuum breaker with
magnetic actuator for railway power supply,” ABB, 2017.
[23] “Technical Manual Catenary Distance Protection MiCOM P40 Agile P44T,” Alstom, 2014.
[24] “Technical Manual Feeder Management Relays MiCOM P141, P142, P143,” Alstom, 2011.
59
Appendix A Distance Protection Settings

PSS/Group 1 Ordsall Lane ATFS (OL)
AT NORMAL FEEDING
Power Flow
Clifton ATS Blackrod ATS
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
Track Feeders AT Feeders
CB Designation SX-50 SX-51 SX-AF50 SX-AF51
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 1.85 1.85 2.41 2.41
Zone 2 Z fwd 10.88 10.88 14.36 14.36
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION
Zone 2 = lower of = Zb(a) + 0.7 x Za(b)

Zb(a) + 0.7 x Zb(c)
Min value = Zb(a) x 1.5

Zb(a) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
Za(b) 2.23 2.23 2.91 2.91
Zb(c) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
ZONE 3 VALUES
Zone 3 fwd 80 ohms (primary)

Zone 3 rev 3 ohms (primary)
ZONE TIMER VALUES
Zone 2 150 msec 1 Max number of ATS in adjacent or follow on section

Zone 3 400 msec
60

SATS BYPASSED
Power Flow
Clifton ATS Blackrod ATS Preston TSC
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61 11.20
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61 11.20
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 1.85 1.85 2.41 2.41
Zone 2 Z fwd 21.93 21.93 27.84 27.84
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION

Zb(a) + 0.7 x Zb(c)

Zb(a) 14.09 14.09 18.56 18.56
Za(b) 11.20 11.20 0.00 0.00
Zb(c) 14.09 14.09 18.56 18.56
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
61

AT NORMAL FEEDING NO ADP
Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 1.85 1.85 2.41 2.41
Zone 2 Z fwd 10.88 10.88 14.36 14.36
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION


Zb(a) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
Za(b) 2.23 2.23 2.91 2.91
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
62

AT REVERSE POWER FLOW NO ADP
Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 10.88 10.88 14.36 14.36
Zone 2 Z fwd 21.75 21.75 28.71 28.71
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Zb(c) x 1.50
ZONE 2 CALCULATION
Zone 2 = Zb(c) x 3.00

Zb(c) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
63
PSS/Group 1 Clifton ATS

AT NORMAL FEEDING
Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 21.75 21.75 28.71 28.71
Zone 2 Z fwd Blocked Blocked Blocked Blocked
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Zb(a) x 3.00

Zb(a) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
ZONE 2 CALCULATION
Zone 2 = Blocked
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
64
PSS/Group 1 Lostock Junction SATS (LK)

AT NORMAL FEEDING
Power Flow
Euxton Junction MPATS (EJ) Lostock Junction SATS (LK) Ordsall Lane ATFS (OL)
Blackrod ATS Clifton ATS Astley ATS
TF Section
SX-50 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18 4.46
SX-51 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18 4.46
ATF Section
SX-AF50 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
SX-AF51 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 4.31 4.31 5.73 5.73
Zone 2 Z fwd 10.88 10.88 14.36 14.36
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION

Zb(a) + 0.7 x Zb(c)

Zb(a) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
Za(b) 4.46 4.46 0.00 0.00
Zb(c) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
65

Power Flow
Blackrod ATS Clifton ATS
TF Section
SX-50 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18
SX-51 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18
ATF Section
SX-AF50 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
SX-AF51 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
Za(a) Za(c)
Zb(a)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 10.88 10.88 14.36 14.36
Zone 2 Z fwd 21.75 21.75 28.71 28.71
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Zb(c) x 1.50
ZONE 2 CALCULATION
Zone 2 = Zb(c) x 3.00

Zb(c) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
66

Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18 4.46
SX-51 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18 4.46
ATF Section
SX-AF50 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
SX-AF51 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 4.31 4.31 5.73 5.73
Zone 2 Z fwd 10.88 10.88 14.36 14.36
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION


Zb(a) 7.25 7.25 9.57 9.57
Za(b) 4.46 4.46 0.00 0.00
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
67

AT NORMAL FEEDING
Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61 11.20
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61 11.20
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 1.90 1.90 2.47 2.47
Zone 2 Z fwd 11.63 11.63 13.49 13.49
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION

Zb(a) + 0.7 x Zb(c)

Zb(a) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
Za(b) 11.20 11.20 0.00 0.00
Zb(c) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
68

Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61 11.20
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61 11.20
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 1.90 1.90 2.47 2.47
Zone 2 Z fwd 14.68 14.68 13.49 13.49
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION


Zb(a) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
Za(b) 11.20 11.20 0.00 0.00
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
69

Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c)
Zb(a)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 10.26 10.26 13.49 13.49
Zone 2 Z fwd 20.52 20.52 26.97 26.97
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Zb(c) x 1.50
ZONE 2 CALCULATION
Zone 2 = Zb(c) x 3.00

Zb(c) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
70
PSS/Group 1 Blackrod ATS

AT NORMAL FEEDING
Power Flow
Ordsall Lane ATFS (OL) Euxton Junction MPATS (EJ) Euxton Junction MPATS (EJ)
TF Section
SX-50 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
SX-51 2.18 5.07 2.23 4.61
ATF Section
SX-AF50 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
SX-AF51 2.83 6.74 2.91 6.08
Za(a) Za(c)
Zb(a)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 20.52 20.52 26.97 26.97
Zone 2 Z fwd Blocked Blocked Blocked Blocked
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Zb(a) x 3.00

Zb(a) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
ZONE 2 CALCULATION
Zone 2 = Blocked
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
71
PSS/Group 1 Euxton Junction MPATS (EJ)

AT NORMAL FEEDING
Power Flow
Blackrod ATS Clifton ATS
TF Section
SX-50 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18
SX-51 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18
ATF Section
SX-AF50 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
SX-AF51 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 3.92 3.92 5.17 5.17
Zone 2 Z fwd 10.39 10.39 13.71 13.71
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION

Zb(a) + 0.7 x Zb(c)

Zb(a) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
Za(b) 5.07 5.07 6.74 6.74
Zb(c) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
72

SATS BYPASSED
Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18 4.46
SX-51 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18 4.46
ATF Section
SX-AF50 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
SX-AF51 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 3.92 3.92 5.17 5.17
Zone 2 Z fwd 21.14 21.14 27.84 27.84
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION

Zb(a) + 0.7 x Zb(c)

Zb(a) 14.09 14.09 18.56 18.56
Za(b) 4.46 4.46 0.00 0.00
Zb(c) 14.09 14.09 18.56 18.56
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
73

Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18
SX-51 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18
ATF Section
SX-AF50 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
SX-AF51 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 10.26 10.26 13.49 13.49
Zone 2 Z fwd 20.52 20.52 26.97 26.97
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Zb(c) x 1.50
ZONE 2 CALCULATION
Zone 2 = Zb(c) x 3.00

Zb(c) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
74

Power Flow
TF Section
SX-50 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18
SX-51 4.61 2.23 5.07 2.18
ATF Section
SX-AF50 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
SX-AF51 6.08 2.91 6.74 2.83
Za(a) Za(c) Za(b)

Zb(a) Zb(b)
Zb(c)
SETTING SUMMARIES
PRIMARY SETTINGS
Zone 1 Z fwd 3.92 3.92 5.17 5.17
Zone 2 Z fwd 10.39 10.39 13.71 13.71
Zone 2 Timer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Zone 3 Z fwd 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
Zone 3 Z rev 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Zone 3 Timer 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
ZONE 1 CALCULATION
Zone 1 = Za(a) x 0.85
ZONE 2 CALCULATION


Zb(a) 6.84 6.84 8.99 8.99
Za(b) 5.07 5.07 6.74 6.74
ZONE 3 VALUES

ZONE TIMER VALUES

Zone 3 400 msec
75
Appendix B MATLAB Code
Voltage & Current Magnitude & Angle to Complex Impedance

function Z = fcn(Vm,Va,Im,Ia)
Z = complex(Vm/Im*cos(deg2rad(Va-Ia)), Vm/Im*sin(deg2rad(Va-Ia)));
Zone 2 Function 1
function y = fcn(trip,reset)
if reset == 1
y = 0;
else
y = trip;
end
Zone 2 Function 2
function y = fcn(trip)
if trip > 15000
y = 1;
else
y = 0;
end
Trip Comparator
function y = fcn(z1,z2,z3)
y = 1;
if z1 == 0 || z2 == 0 || z3 == 0
y = 0;
end
76
Zone 1 Trip – Ordsall Lane OL/SX-51 Group 1

function Trip = Zone1(Z)
%Zone 1 setting
Z1 = 1.85;
Z1A = deg2rad(75);
Z1t = deg2rad(-3);
R1R = 10;
R1L = 12;
Z1s = deg2rad(60);
%Zone 1 plot
x1 = sin(Z1A)*R1L/sin(deg2rad(180)-Z1A+Z1t);
xx1 = sin(Z1A)*R1R/sin(deg2rad(180)-Z1A+Z1t);
pkx1 = -x1*sin(Z1t)+Z1*sin(Z1A);
if -R1L*sin(deg2rad(-90)+Z1s) > pkx1
pgx1 = pkx1;
else
pgx1 = -R1L*sin(deg2rad(-90)+Z1s);
end
pcx1 = xx1*sin(Z1t)+Z1*sin(Z1A);
prx1 = R1R*sin(Z1A)/sin(deg2rad(90)+Z1s-Z1A)*sin(deg2rad(-90)+Z1s);
pgr1 = -pgx1*sin(Z1s)/sin(deg2rad(90)-Z1s);
if pgx1 == pkx1
pkr1 = pgr1;
else
pkr1 = -x1*cos(Z1t)+Z1*cos(Z1A);
end
pcr1 = xx1*cos(Z1t)+Z1*cos(Z1A);
prr1 = R1R*sin(Z1A)/sin(deg2rad(90)+Z1s-Z1A)*cos(deg2rad(-90)+Z1s);
%All Zone plots
r1q = [pgr1 pkr1 pcr1 prr1 pgr1];

x1q = [pgx1 pkx1 pcx1 prx1 pgx1];
if inpolygon(real(Z),imag(Z),r1q,x1q) == 1
Trip = 1;
else
Trip = 0;
end
77
Zone 2 Trip - Ordsall Lane OL/SX-51 Group 1

%Zone 2 setting
Z2 = 10.87;
Z2A = deg2rad(75);
Z2t = deg2rad(-3);
R2R = 10;
R2L = 14;
Z2s = deg2rad(60);
%Zone 2 plot
pgx2 = pkx2;
else
end
if pgx2 == pkx2
pkr2 = pgr2;
else
end
%All Zone plots

Trip = 1;
else
Trip = 0;
end
78
Zone 3 Trip - Ordsall Lane OL/SX-51 Group 1

Trip = 0;
%Zone 3 setting
Z3 = 80;
Z3A = deg2rad(75);
Z3t = deg2rad(-3);
R3R = 10;
R3L = 24;
Z3s = deg2rad(60);
Z3rev = 3;
%Zone 3 plot
ox3 = -Z3rev*sin(Z3A);
pgx3 = ox3-x3*sin(Z3t);
pkx3 = pgx3+(Z3+Z3rev)*sin(Z3A);
prx3 = ox3+xx3*sin(Z3t);
pcx3 = prx3+(Z3+Z3rev)*sin(Z3A);
or3 = -Z3rev*cos(Z3A);
pgr3 = or3-x3*cos(Z3t);
pkr3 = pgr3+(Z3+Z3rev)*cos(Z3A);
prr3 = or3+xx3*cos(Z3t);
pcr3 = prr3+(Z3+Z3rev)*cos(Z3A);
%All Zone plots

Trip = 1;
else
Trip = 0;
end
79
Ordsall Lane OL/SX-51 Impedance Plot
%Zone 1 setting
Z1 = 1.85;
Z1A = deg2rad(75);
Z1t = deg2rad(-3);
R1R = 10;
R1L = 12;
Z1s = deg2rad(60);
%Zone 2 setting
Z2 = 10.87;
Z2A = deg2rad(75);
Z2t = deg2rad(-3);
R2R = 10;
R2L = 14;
Z2s = deg2rad(60);
%Zone 3 setting
Z3 = 80;
Z3A = deg2rad(75);
Z3t = deg2rad(-3);
R3R = 10;
R3L = 24;
Z3s = deg2rad(60);
Z3rev = 3;
%Zone 1 plot
pgx1 = pkx1;
else
end
if pgx1 == pkx1
pkr1 = pgr1;
else
end
%Zone 2 plot
80

pgx2 = pkx2;
else
end
if pgx2 == pkx2
pkr2 = pgr2;
else
end
%Zone 3 plot
ox3 = -Z3rev*sin(Z3A);
pgx3 = ox3-x3*sin(Z3t);
pkx3 = pgx3+(Z3+Z3rev)*sin(Z3A);
prx3 = ox3+xx3*sin(Z3t);
pcx3 = prx3+(Z3+Z3rev)*sin(Z3A);
or3 = -Z3rev*cos(Z3A);
pgr3 = or3-x3*cos(Z3t);
pkr3 = pgr3+(Z3+Z3rev)*cos(Z3A);
prr3 = or3+xx3*cos(Z3t);
pcr3 = prr3+(Z3+Z3rev)*cos(Z3A);
%All Zone plots



figure(1);
plot(r1q,x1q,'b',r2q,x2q,'c',r3q,x3q,'g');
axis([-30 50 -20 100]);
xlabel('Resistance (R) ohm');
ylabel('Reactance (X) ohm');
grid on
hold on
81
line(xlim, [0 0],'color','k','HandleVisibility','off') %x-axis

line([0 0], ylim,'color','k','HandleVisibility','off') %y-axis
scatter(real(Z),imag(Z),1,'r');
legend('Zone 1','Zone 2','Zone 3','Fault');
82
Appendix C MATLAB Plots
OL/SX-51 Normal Feeding fault 1
83
CC/SX-51 Normal Feeding fault 1
LK/SX-51 Normal Feeding fault 1
84
CC/SX-51 Normal Feeding fault 2
85
86
BM/SX-52 Normal Feeding fault 3
87
EJ/SX-52 Normal Feeding fault 3
OL/SX-51 SATS Bypassed fault 1
88
CC/SX-51 SATS Bypassed fault 1
BM/SX-53 SATS Bypassed fault 1
89
EJ/SX-53 SATS Bypassed fault 1
90
91
92
93
OL/SX-51 No ADP fault 1
94
CC/SX-51 No ADP fault 1
LK/SX-51 No ADP fault 1
95
CC/SX-51 No ADP fault 2
96
97
BM/SX-52 No ADP fault 3
98
EJ/SX-52 No ADP fault 3
99

Railway Protection Study Settings and Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Railway Protection Study Settings and Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A thesis submitted to Newcastle University for the degree of

Master of Science in Power Distribution Engineering

RAILWAY PROTECTION STUDY

Author and ID:

SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

I have read and understand the penalties associated with plagiarism.

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................viii

List of Principle Symbols ............................................................................................................... ix

1.1. Project Definition ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2

2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Railway Electrification ..................................................................................................... 2

Classic Electrification ............................................................................................... 3

Autotransformer System ........................................................................................... 4

2.2. Protection Systems ........................................................................................................... 6

Distance Protection ................................................................................................... 6

Differential Protection ............................................................................................... 8

Overcurrent Protection ............................................................................................ 10

2.3. Communication Protocols for Intelligent Electronic Devices ........................................ 10

IEC 60870 ............................................................................................................... 11

IEC 61850 ............................................................................................................... 11

2.4. Accelerated Distance Protection ..................................................................................... 12

3. System Design ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.1. Conditions of the System................................................................................................ 13

Feeding Scenarios ................................................................................................... 14

Overhead Line Details ............................................................................................. 15

4. Determination of the Protection Settings .............................................................................. 16

4.1. Distance Protection Calculations .................................................................................... 16

Distance Protection Settings Summary ................................................................... 21

4.2. Effect of an AT System on Distance Protection ............................................................. 22

5. System Modelling using MATLAB ...................................................................................... 25

5.1. Distance protection relay in MATLAB .......................................................................... 25

5.2. AT System in MATLAB ................................................................................................ 27

6. Results and Studies................................................................................................................ 30

6.1. Load Flow Studies using MATLAB .............................................................................. 30

Loads - Normal Feeding .......................................................................................... 30

Maximum Possible Load ......................................................................................... 31

6.2. Fault Studies using MATLAB ........................................................................................ 34

Faults - Normal Feeding .......................................................................................... 35

Faults - SATS Bypassed .......................................................................................... 37

Faults - No ADP ...................................................................................................... 37

Load with a Fault in Adjacent Circuit ..................................................................... 41

6.3. Initial Short Circuit Testing Results ............................................................................... 43

Proposed Temporary Changes ................................................................................ 44

6.4. Second Short Circuit Testing Results ............................................................................. 48

ATS Track Feeders.................................................................................................. 49

Ordsall Lane ATFS Track Feeders.......................................................................... 51

6.5. Simulated Results vs Reality .......................................................................................... 54

7.1. Future Work .................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix A Distance Protection Settings ................................................................................ 60

Appendix B MATLAB Code ................................................................................................... 76

Appendix C MATLAB Plots ................................................................................................... 83

Figure 1. Booster Transformer System ........................................................................................... 3

Table 1. Series 2 Equipment ......................................................................................................... 13

LIST OF PRINCIPLE SYMBOLS

1.1. Project Definition

Some of the connecting routes have already been electrified as follows:

1.2. Project Objectives

2.1. Railway Electrification

2.1.1.1. Booster Transformer System

Figure 1. Booster Transformer System