REDUCING TRIPPING TIMES IN MEDIUM VOLTAGE

SWITCHGEAR
Robert A. Wilson, P.E.
Senior Member, IEEE
ABB Inc.
123 Capri St.
Sugar Land, TX 77478
bob.a.wilson@us.abb.com
Abstract Traditional coordination time intervals (CTI)
between successive levels of protection in a main-tie-main
(MTM) configuration have been about 0.25 to 0.3 seconds.
When several layers of coordination must be accommodated,
the backup clearing times can be excessively long. However,
a variety of approaches may be used to reduce overall backup
coordination times. When coordination time improves, there
may also be significant impacts on total clearing time, arc
flash incident energy, voltage regulation, motor dropouts and
system integrity.
This paper compares three approaches to reducing the
maximum total clearing time in a typical MTM configuration
including:
x
x
x

Raymond E. Catlett, P.E.

Senior Member, IEEE
ABB Inc.
8 Driftwood St.
Collinsville, IL 62234
ray.catlett@us.abb.com
Even if this layout is operated with the tie breaker
normally open, a failure of either transformer will require
that tie breaker be closed so that the loads served by
each feeder breaker may be served from the remaining
transformer.
Therefore, as a general case, the
coordination path is A-B-C. In other words, the main
breaker relay C must be coordinated with the tie breaker
relay B which in turn must be coordinated with the feeder
breaker relay A. The minimum time difference between
curves is referred to as the CTI (coordination time
interval) and is typically in the range of 0.25 to 0.3
seconds. The sketch in Figure 2 shows these timecurrent coordination curve relationships.

Setting group change(s) with feedback from the tie

breaker position
Use of high-speed relay-to-relay communications to
quickly isolate fault locations
Use of an electronically triggered fault current limiter
(ET-FCL) to limit available fault current

Index Terms - fault current limiter (FCL), main-tie-main

(MTM), short circuit capacity (SCC), coordination time interval
(CTI), Generic Object Oriented Substation Event (GOOSE)
I.

INTRODUCTION

Three methods of improving backup coordination times are

discussed in this paper. For comparison purposes, each
method is based on the simple MTM layout shown in Figure 1.

Utility A

Utility B
Fig. 2 Typical MTM time-current coordination
For purposes of comparison, a CTI interval of 0.3
seconds will be assumed throughout the remainder of this
paper. It is also assumed that there are no significant
sources of fault current downstream from the main buses.
In other words, fault current cannot flow upstream.

C
B
Bus A

Bus B
A

Assuming the fastest operating time of Relay A is 2

cycles or about 0.033 seconds, the CTI interval dictates a
minimum operating time for Relay B at 0.33 seconds and
a minimum operating time for Relay C at 0.63 seconds.

Fig. 1 Base MTM layout

,(((



3UR5HOD\

II.

TIE BREAKER POSITION FEEDBACK

Improving overall relay operating times is most easily

accomplished with the aid of relay-to-relay communications.
Such communication may be accomplished via hardwire
connections between critical devices or via a common
communication protocol.
One of the simplest ways to improve coordination times in a
MTM layout is to communicate the position of the tie breaker
to the relays at C as illustrated in Figure 3.

Modern microprocessor relays typically have multiple setting

groups available. With knowledge of the tie breaker position
at relay C, the settings can be easily changed by changing the
active setting group. This information can be passed using
hardwire connections from the tie breaker 52b auxiliary
contact to initiate the setting group change. When the tie
breaker is open, the 52b contact applies a voltage to an input
on relay C to initiate a switch from active group #1 to active
group #2. This change moves the time-current curve to the
position previously occupied by relay B as shown in Figure 4.
Alternatively, for relays that are IEC61850 compliant, the
breaker position information may be passed from relay B to
relays C via GOOSE messaging to accomplish the same goal.

Fig. 3 Tie breaker position feedback to relays at C

In the base example (Figure 1), when the tie breaker is
closed, relay C must be coordinated with relay B which in turn
must be coordinated with relay A. On a typical log-log
coordination plot, the curves would be stacked as C-B-A top
to bottom as in Figure 2.
If the tie breaker is open, there is no need for relay C to be
coordinated with relay B (tie breaker). It is only necessary to
coordinate relay C with relay A. The coordination plot curves
become C-A as illustrated in Figure 4.

IEC61850 GOOSE messaging offers additional advantages

including being able to transfer signal quality without extra
connections. For example, suppose both 52a and 52b
contacts are connected to relay B. One could confidently
determine the position of the tie breaker if 52a is closed and
52b is open or visa versa. However, if both 52a and 52b are
in the same position, the actual position of the tie breaker is
indeterminate. This could easily happen if one of the auxiliary
contacts is dirty and does not make a good electrical
connection when closed. In this case, the quality of the data
being sent is declared to be bad. The GOOSE message
quality attribute may be passed along with the signal itself. In
order to switch setting groups, the data point indicating the tie
breaker position should indicate open and the quality of the
data point should be good. If both conditions are not met, the
switch to the faster setting group #2 should not be made.
Another advantage of GOOSE messaging is accomplished via
constant monitoring of communications from the sending relay
B to the receiving relays C. If communications is interrupted,
a communications timeout error is generated and a GOOSE
error is issued at relays C. The communication timeout will
also cause the validity of the data to be declared bad.
Although speed of signal transfer is not particularly critical in
this example, GOOSE messaging has also been shown to be
faster than hardwire connections due primarily to the filtering
time and processing time associated with signals over hard
wire. Binary GOOSE message transfer times can be as little
as 3ms which is less than one quarter of a cycle.
Figure 5 shows the logic of a GOOSE logic implementation on
one manufacturers relay C. Setting group 2 is activated only
if all of the following conditions are met:
x
x
x

Fig. 4 Coordination time curves for open tie breaker layout



Tie breaker is open (POS_OP signal asserted)

Validity output is asserted (52a and 52b are
consistent with each other and GOOSE
communication has not timed out)
GOOSE communications status is good

Fig. 5 Setting group 2 activation logic

Advantages of this approach include:
x

Simple, can be implemented with hardwires

Fig. 6 Pickup signal communication using hardwires

Disadvantages include:
x

The time delay in the 50D elements must be set no less than
the maximum time required to receive blocking signals from
the downstream relays. If this scheme is implemented with
hardwire connections between relays, a delay time of 10 - 15
cycles is probably appropriate. If implemented with GOOSE
messaging, a delay time of 15 - 30 milliseconds is possible
depending on the manufacturers GOOSE implementation.

Coordination improvement is limited to operation

under open-tie conditions
III.

FAULT LOCATION FEEDBACK

The previous example shows how communication may be

used to change setting groups and thereby reduce tripping
times at relay C. Reduced tripping times at all relays can be
achieved when additional information is transferred.
This scheme uses a separate set of phase and ground 50D
(definite time) elements at relays B and C operating in parallel
with the existing conventional time-overcurrent (TOC)
elements. The 50D elements are set at the lowest pickup
value of the feeder relays and at a time delay setting of 0.1
seconds or perhaps a bit shorter (discussed later). With these
settings, the phase and ground 50D elements will be much
faster than their corresponding TOC elements. They can be
allowed to operate only if the fault is known to be in their
primary protection zone. The 50D elements must be blocked
when any downstream relay senses the fault since that
implies a fault within a downstream zone. Consequently, the
pickup (aka start) status of downstream relays must be
communicated upstream to block any upstream 50D elements
that would otherwise trip.

The base MTM layout used in these examples is quite simple

and is intended only to compare the three approaches
described in this paper. Typical MTM layouts have several
feeders on each bus. Implementing this scheme with several
feeders quickly becomes impractical if a hardwire
implementation is used. The number of wire pairs is equal to
the number of relay combinations in the layout. Even for this
simple MTM layout, the number of wire pairs would be
cumbersome. Moreover, each wire and wire connection
represents an additional failure point that is not normally
monitored for integrity, impacting the overall reliability of
scheme.
GOOSE messaging accomplishes the same goal but with far
fewer physical connections. GOOSE messages are based on
a publisher-subscriber basis where the publisher is the sender
of data and the subscriber is the receiver of the data. Figure 7
shows the equivalent GOOSE based layout.

For example, consider the MTM example in Figure 6. If any

overcurrent element picks up (starts timing), that information
is sent to each upstream relay as a blocking signal. If relay B
or relay C receives a blocking signal, its 50D elements are
blocked from operating because the fault is beyond its
protection zone. As long as one or more downstream relays
are in pickup mode, all upstream 50D elements in each of the
upstream relays are blocked. If any 50D element times out
without receiving a blocking signal, it is allowed to trip.

Fig. 7 Pickup signal communication using GOOSE messages



GOOSE communication requires a single Ethernet connection

between each relay and a common Ethernet switch. Signals
are routed from the publisher through the Ethernet Switch to
the subscriber.
Per IEC 61850-5 Standards, Class P1 (distribution) point-topoint communication time for high speed applications is 10ms
[1]. Consequently, a delay time of 1 cycle should be sufficient
to allow receipt of a blocking signal from the downstream
relay(s). Some relay manufacturers even meet the Class
P2/3 (transmission) requirement of <3ms point-to-point
communication time allowing an even shorter delay time
setting [2].
For the purpose of this general example, a 1-cycle delay time
on the 50D element is assumed. If this timer expires without
receipt of a blocking signal, it is allowed to trip. Another 1.5
cycles of analog signal processing time and dry contact
closure yields an estimated overall tripping time of 2.5 cycles.
Any fault between relay C and relay A will be tripped in the
same time.
Provided all communication paths are working properly, the
overall relay tripping times can be reduced drastically. Each
zone essentially becomes a pilot protection zone employing
GOOSE blocking signals. Table 1 shows a predicted
comparison of relay operating times for conventional TOC
protection and accelerated GOOSE message-based
protection schemes. This comparison assumes a CTI of 0.3
seconds for the TOC scheme. Times do not include the
breaker operating times.

Table 1: Comparison of Protection Schemes

Fault Location
Between A & B
Between B & C

TOC (est.)
0.33 seconds
0.63 seconds

GOOSE (est.)
0.04 seconds
0.04 seconds

GOOSE messaging offers another advantage over hardwire

connections.
Communication between subscribers and
publishers is periodically monitored. If communications is lost
for whatever reason (ex. Ethernet Switch failure or a defective
Ethernet connection), the validity of the signal changes state.
In this communications dependent scheme, the validity
attribute must also block the upstream 50D elements.
Otherwise, a failure to block would result in an overtrip.
As previously mentioned, the authors propose that this
communication-assisted GOOSE blocking scheme be
operated in parallel with conventional TOC protection as
outlined briefly in the introduction section of this paper. In the
event of a GOOSE communication failure, the slower backup
TOC protection would still operate. The 51P and 51N timecoordinated elements would eventually time out and trip.
Communication allows coordination to be based on pickup
status rather than time.
Figure 8 shows an example of a GOOSE blocking scheme for
one particular manufacturer.

GOOSE communications error

Blocking Signal

50D Elements at B

GOOSE overcurrent pickup

signals received from Relay A
Fig 8 GOOSE blocking of Relay B by Relay A



The operating times for the IEC61850 GOOSE based scheme

are constant. The GOOSE based scheme has an estimated
tripping time of 2.5 cycles or 0.04 seconds. Overall tripping
times are only slightly slower than dedicated differential
protection zones.
This example is based on the simplest of MTM schemes.
Additional protection layers above level C could be added
without affecting the overall operating times within the
GOOSE network.
Advantages of the GOOSE messaging implementation
include:
x
x
x

x
x

Communications are typically faster than hardwire[1]

Communications channels are continuously
monitored[2]
For practical numbers of relays and communications
signals, the effects on point-to-point delay times are
small [2]
Most applications require fewer relay-to-relay
connections
GOOSE messages are repeated automatically to
improve reliability of signal transfer

Fig. 9 Using an ET-FCL to limit fault current

If the ET-FCL with a threshold setting of 12kA is inserted in
series with the tie breaker, the two buses will be separated
when the ET-FCL senses current above 12kA. Complete
separation occurs within 1ms, too fast for the other relays to
detect a problem. Consequently, Relay C only needs to be
coordinated with relay B up to the ET-FCL setting of 12kA, not
the previous 25kA. Above 12kA, the two halves are isolated
and relay C only needs to coordinate A. The curve C shape
may be adjusted (lower time dial) because the CTI spacing
between C and B is no longer relevant above this threshold
value of current. Figure 10 shows how this improvement is
realized.

Disadvantages of GOOSE messaging include:

x
x
x

Some additional relay programming required to

configure the GOOSE messages (virtual relay-torelay wiring
Communications between different manufacturers,
while possible, adds complexity
Adding feeders requires downloading new GOOSE
configurations to all receiving relays in the network
IV.

LIMITING FAULT CURRENT

Consider the simple MTM layout again. Assume that each

transformer has similar impedances and the available threephase bolted fault current on the load side is 25kA as shown
in Figure 9. Then, due to the symmetrical layout of the
system, the total fault current will be divided approximately
evenly between the two transformers.

C
C
B
CTI
A
CTI
CTI

12kA

CURRENT

Fig. 10 Coordination improvements with a Fault Current

Limiter
Advantages of this approach include:
x
x
x
x



Relay C characteristics
move from C to C

TIME

An Electronically Triggered Fault Current Limiter (ET-FCL)

operates much like a sub-cycle switch.
It consists of
electronics that initiate a pyrotechnic device that literally blows
the current carrying conductor apart within an explosion proof
canister once the threshold current setting is exceeded [4].
The electronics determine the rate-of-rise characteristics of
the fault and predict whether the root-mean-square (rms)
value of the threshold setting will be exceeded. If so, the
electronics triggers the pyrotechnic device, opening the circuit.
The ET-FCL detection and peak fault wave limitation time is
about 0.6ms, much faster than most relays can detect that a
fault has occurred.

No communication between relays is required

Fault current is truly limited with no appreciable effect
on regulation
Switchgear upgrades may be postponed if additional
loads are installed
As ET-FCL threshold settings are lowered, faster
time dials may be applied to upstream relays

x
x

Senior Technical Consultant. He has more than 30 years

of design, analysis and consulting experience in power
systems and has co-authored previous PCIC papers. He
is a senior member of IEEE and a registered professional
engineer in the states of Missouri and Texas.

Arc flash incident energy reduction

Inter-bus immunity during faults

Disadvantages include:
x
x

ET-FCL cost and the cost of consumables

Inability to fully test the ET- FCL (partial test only)
V.

CONCLUSIONS

Three different methods for reducing coordination time in a

simple MTM scheme have been discussed. The simplest
uses feedback from the tie breaker position to dynamically
change setting groups. The second uses high-speed Ethernet
communications to determine fault location, thereby
eliminating the normal time coordination of relays. The third
approach uses a fault current limiter to separate the buses
during heavy faults.
Each has advantages and disadvantages.
The best
improvements come from sharing information between relays.
The additional information makes it possible to locate the
faulted segment within a few milliseconds, eliminating the
need for conventional time coordination. An IEC61850 based
protection scheme that shares overcurrent pickup status with
upstream relays provides results in the fastest clearing times
with minimal additional investment in hardware.
VI.
1.
2.
3.
4.

REFERENCES

International Standard IEC 61850-5, First edition

2003-07
Hakala-Ranta, Antii, et al.,Utilizing Possibilities of
IEC 61850 and GOOSE, CIRED 2009, Paper 0741
Feeder Protection and Control, REF620 ANSI,
Product Guide, ABB 1MAC506635, PG Rev. A,
October 2012
Catlett, Ray, et al.,Improving Relay Protection Levels
in Medium Voltage Switchgear, 2012 IEEE PCIC
Conference
VII.

BIOGRAPHIES

Robert Wilson received his BSEE degree from Purdue

University and his MSEE degree from Carnegie Mellon
University where his focus was on power engineering.
He is currently employed by ABB Inc. as a Regional
Technical Manager in Sugar Land, Texas for ABBs
Substation Automation and Protection Division covering
the South Central United States. He has authored
several technical papers on the subject of optical arc
flash protection. He is a senior member of IEEE and a
registered professional engineer in the states of
Pennsylvania and Texas.
Ray Catlett received his BSEE degree from University of
Missouri-Rolla and a Masters Engineering Management
from Washington University where his focus was
technology assessment and innovation. He has been
employed with ABB since 2000 in many roles, presently a