IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2004.
DOI: 10.1109/psce.2004.1397508
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Superimposed components based sub-cycle protection of transmission lines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The advantages of this method are that, it will detect fast and slow swing and ensure the correct blocking of zones. Besides that, this method is also reported to work efficiently for faults occurring during a power swing [29,39]. However, Nayak et.al [10] reported that the scheme prevents the relay from tripping when three phase fault occurs at power angle close to 1801 and single phase high resistance ground fault occurs during the power swing.…”
Section: Superimposed Current Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advantages of this method are that, it will detect fast and slow swing and ensure the correct blocking of zones. Besides that, this method is also reported to work efficiently for faults occurring during a power swing [29,39]. However, Nayak et.al [10] reported that the scheme prevents the relay from tripping when three phase fault occurs at power angle close to 1801 and single phase high resistance ground fault occurs during the power swing.…”
Section: Superimposed Current Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advantages and disadvantages of different existing methods for detecting the three‐phase faults during power swing have already been discussed in Section 1. Among the discussed existing approaches, the four important methods, (1) the superimposed components of current ( I sup ), (2) the method based on FFT coefficients, (3) the method based on transient monitor index (TMI), and (4) the method based on magnitude of Teager‐Kaiser energy operator of negative‐sequence current ( ψ ( I 2 )) are considered for comparison with the proposed method. The results for the simulation studies performed for the three typical test cases on WSCC three‐machine, nine‐bus system (Figure A) are provided in the following subsections.…”
Section: Comparative Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rate of change of the apparent impedance, the blinder, the rate of change of resistance, and the rate of change of the swing centre voltage are generally used as features in the conventional PSB schemes for differentiating faults from power swing. The relative advantages and disadvantages of such schemes are well documented in IEEE and Benmouyal et al A fault detector using superimposed components of current is proposed in Apostolov et al and Khoradshadi to differentiate three‐phase faults from power swing. Although the method is simple to implement, it has limitation to detect the three‐phase faults producing small change in current magnitude during power swing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1. The proposed algorithm is to be initiated when power swing condition is detected in a power system [1], [29], [30], [31]. Since current signal oscillates during power swing, the frequency estimation becomes erroneous when the signal envelop is at minimum [27].…”
Section: B Phasor Estimation Using Least Squares Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%