IEEE Africon 2011 - The Falls Resort and Conference Centre, Livingstone, Zambia, 13 - 15 September 2011

Studying the impact of mutual coupling on distance

protection relays using a real-time simulator
K R Pillay*

B S Rigby

* eThekwini Electricity
1 Jeff Taylor Crescent
Durban, South Africa

School of Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering

University of KwaZulu-Natal
Durban, South Africa

AbstractThis paper examines the impact of mutual coupling

between parallel transmission lines on the performance of
distance protection relays using hardware-in-loop connection of
actual relays on a real-time simulator. The results confirm the
extent of the likely reach errors in a distance protection scheme
in a practical field example, and demonstrate the need to
carefully consider mutual coupling effects when designing
distance protection schemes in parallel-line topologies.
Keywords-distance protection; mutual coupling; real-time
simulation.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Permissive overreaching distance protection schemes are

in widespread use in South Africa. Although the
characteristics of such schemes are generally well understood,
there are particular practical operating challenges facing such
protection schemes that, although their existence is well
known and they are often discussed, are not thoroughly
documented or fully understood. This paper describes part of
an ongoing effort to make use of modern tools to better
understand the performance of protection relays in the
complex operating conditions encountered in practice in the
field. In particular, the paper examines the impact of mutual
coupling between parallel transmission lines on the
performance of distance protection relays.
Mutual coupling between adjacent transmission lines
arises when the lines are constructed sufficiently close to one
another that the magnetic fluxes produced by the currentcarrying conductors of one line link to a significant extent
with the conductors of the adjacent line. The adjacent lines
may be constructed on the same tower, or on separate towers
in the same servitude, and may be at the same or at different
transmission voltages [1,2]. In the South African transmission
context, protection settings for adjacent lines in the same
servitude separated by distances of 35m or more have
historically ignored mutual coupling effects, but recent
experience has called for a review of this practice [3].
One particular tool that has been used in South Africa in
recent years, and which has proven to be extremely powerful
for providing better understanding of protection relay
performance, is the real-time digital simulator (RTDS) [4].
The RTDS platform allows actual protection relays, with all
their settings, to be connected in a hardware-in-loop
arrangement with a detailed, electromagnetic transients (EMT)
model of the protected system, thereby allowing complex
protection challenges encountered in the field to be studied in

a representative manner, yet under controlled laboratory

conditions [5,6].
This paper describes the results of an investigation into the
use of an RTDS to study the impact of mutual coupling
between parallel transmission lines on the performance of
modern, numerical distance protection relays. The focus of
this phase of the work is primarily on establishing the
capability of the RTDSs real-time models for the study of
distance protection relays in magnetically-coupled parallel
transmission circuits. The paper therefore considers for
quantitative study some specific test topologies from the
literature that present known practical challenges for
protective relays in closely-coupled parallel lines.
II.

THEORY

Double-circuit transmission lines can have many different

topologies and end-connections, but in this paper the focus is
on the particular case where the two lines are on separate
towers in the same servitude, and are connected to common
busbars at each end. In the initial studies, it is also assumed
that the circuits are fed from a source at only one end as
shown in the diagram of Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Double-circuit system considered for study.

If the two transmission circuits between Buses S and R in

Fig. 1 are sufficiently close to one another, zero-sequence
current in one circuit can induce (via mutual coupling)
significant zero-sequence voltage in the other circuit (positive
and negative sequence mutual coupling effects are typically
negligible) [1]. Consider a phase-to-ground fault F1 close to
the relay at B. For this fault location, the zero-sequence
current IL0C in the healthy line is in the same direction as the
zero-sequence current IL0A at end A of the faulted line, but in
the opposite direction to the current IL0B at end B of the faulted
line. For this distribution of fault currents, the zero-sequence
current in the healthy line induces a zero-sequence voltage in

978-1-61284-993-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

IEEE Africon 2011 - The Falls Resort and Conference Centre, Livingstone, Zambia, 13 - 15 September 2011

the faulty line whose effect is to add to the voltage at A, and to

oppose the voltage at B; consequently, the effect of mutual
coupling between the lines is, in this case, to cause an apparent
increase in the impedance seen by the relay at A (i.e. relay A
under-reaches) and a decrease in the impedance seen by the
relay at B (relay B over-reaches).

zero-sequence current in the coupled line because of the

closed loop formed by the out-of-service line grounded at both
ends; furthermore, this induced zero-sequence current cannot
be measured by the relays at A and B for the purposes of
mutual compensation, since the out-of-service circuit is
grounded on the line-side of its current transformers.

In a permissive over-reaching (POR) protection scheme for

a line such as that between A and B in Fig. 1, the relays at
each end have a forward-looking distance element (Zone 1)
that operates at high speed and without supervision; to ensure
security of the protection scheme (i.e. unsupervised, highspeed tripping only for faults that are guaranteed to be on the
protected line) the reach of these Zone 1 elements is normally
restricted to 80% of line length, to give a 20% margin of
safety against measurement and other errors. Hence, any overreaching of Zone 1 elements due to mutual coupling effects
has the effect of reducing the security of the protection
scheme, increasing the risk that the scheme may trip
incorrectly at high speed for faults not on the protected line.

References [1] and [2] have proposed that this limitation of

mutual compensation can be catered for by using different
settings groups on the relay selected for the case when parallel
lines are under maintenance. Alternatively, some utilities
prefer to avoid using mutual compensation, opting rather to redesign the reach settings of Zone 1 and Zone 2 elements in
cases where significant mutual coupling is a concern in order
to ensure security and reliability for worst-case conditions [3].
Clearly though, a thorough knowledge and understanding of
the true impact of mutual coupling under all realistic
conditions is required in order to properly implement either of
these protection philosophies. The following section therefore
describes an RTDS model that has been developed to study
the impact of mutual coupling on distance protection relays.

In a POR scheme each relay also has forward-looking

distance elements (Zone 2) that intentionally reach 20%
beyond the remote end of the line in order to provide
reliability (i.e. to ensure tripping for all faults on the protected
line). Because the reach of these elements extends into other
lines, they have time-delayed operation, with additional
supervisory logic that allows fast tripping by over-riding the
time delay only if the relay at the remote-end of the same line
has also detected the fault. Any under-reaching of Zone 2
elements due to mutual coupling would have the effect of
reducing the reliability of the protection scheme, increasing
the risk that the scheme may not trip for faults near the ends of
the protected line until other relays have operated (so-called
sequential tripping).

III.

REAL-TIME MODEL

A real-time model of the double-circuit transmission

system shown in Fig. 1 was developed for an RTDS simulator.
The parameters of the transmission lines between Buses S and
R of this system were taken from those of two actual 275 kV
lines, of 69 km length, that run in the same servitude in
KwaZulu-Natal. The distributed parameter models for the
transmission lines in this real-time model are configured by
entering the dimensions and geometries of the conductors and
ground wires of each transmission circuit. Fig. 3 provides a
simplified representation of the geometries for the two lines
being studied (in practice additional parameters are required to
fully describe each line, but these have been omitted from the
diagram for simplicity).

Figure 2: One line out of service and grounded at both ends.

Some distance protection relays provide a facility for

mutual compensation when setting the relay, relying on
additional measurement inputs to supply the relay with the
zero-sequence current from the parallel line to achieve this.
However, not all utilities permit the use of this approach [7],
and even when it can be used, if the mutual compensation
factor is not chosen with great care, there is a risk of relays
overreaching and hence tripping incorrectly in response to
faults on adjacent feeders [1,7,8]. Furthermore, even correct
setting of mutual compensation is not sufficient to provide
accurate measurement of faulted impedance for all practical
contingencies. Consider the situation in Fig. 2, in which the
circuit between C and D is out of service and grounded at both
ends. In such cases a ground fault on circuit AB can induce

Figure 3: Line geometries for double-circuit study case.

For the purposes of comparative study, the real-time model

of the double circuit transmission system was configured in
two ways. Firstly, each of the two circuits was described using
its own, distinct distributed parameter model, so that no
mutual coupling effects between the circuits were represented.
Secondly, the two circuits were described together, using a
single distributed parameter model comprising six sets of
bundled sub-conductors (three per circuit) and four ground
wires (two per circuit) so that all coupling effects between the
two circuits were represented. In this second case, the distance

978-1-61284-993-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

IEEE Africon 2011 - The Falls Resort and Conference Centre, Livingstone, Zambia, 13 - 15 September 2011

The protection relays shown in Fig. 1 were represented in

two ways in the real-time model. Firstly, two actual industrial
distance protection relays [9] were connected hardware-inloop with the real-time model such that the physical relays
were fed with amplified versions of the live, real-time
simulation model outputs, and their trip signals imported into
the real-time simulation. Depending on the focus of the study,
these trip signals were either used to operate the circuit
breakers at A and B in the real-time model (i.e. full, closedloop studies of the relays performances when connected
hardware-in-loop with the real-time model) or simply used for
monitoring trip outcomes and trip times without allowing the
relays to operate breakers A and B (open-loop studies of the
hardware-in-loop connected relays).
Secondly, a mathematical model of a generic distance
relays impedance measurement algorithms and zone reaches
(available in the RTDS real-time model library [10]) was
included at each relaying point as a part of the real-time
simulation model. These real-time relay models were run in
parallel with the actual hardware relays being tested so as to
provide greater insight into the reasons for the real relays
responses to each fault scenario.
IV.

12

ZCIM1r1 vs ZCRE1r1

AvonMersey1

Z1 Z2 Z3

9.66667

7.33333

X (Ohms)

d between the closest conductor bundles of the two circuits

was varied between 7.9 m and 1000 m in order to examine
how the influence of mutual coupling on protection relays
diminishes as the separation between the lines increases (in
practice the two lines being studied are separated by 34 m).
For the purposes of these studies, each of the two circuits in
the transmission system was modeled as an ideally-transposed
circuit along its own length.

2.66667

0.33333

-2
-6

-3.66667

-1.33333

3.33333

5.66667

R (Ohms)

Figure 4: Impedance measured by C-phase ground element of the relay at A

for a C-g fault located 80% along the line AB; no representation of mutual
coupling between the lines.

B. Mutual Coupling Both Lines In Service

The study in the previous section was then repeated, but
with mutual coupling between the circuits AB and CD now
represented in the real-time model and with the distance
between the circuits initially set at its actual value in the field
of 34 m. The Zone 1 elements of both the hardware relay and
the real-time relay model connected at A were found to
underreach for a C-g fault once mutual coupling between the
lines was represented.
12

ZCIM1r3 vs ZCRE1r3

AvonMersey1M

Z1 Z2 Z3

RESULTS
9.66667

Faults were then placed along line AB to verify the reach

settings of the Zone 1 elements in both the hardware relays,
and the real-time simulator model relays. Fig. 4 shows the
impedance seen by the ground element of the real-time model
of the relay at A for a C-phase-to-ground (C-g) fault located
80% of the line length from A (the distance to which the Zone
1 elements were set to reach). Fig. 4 confirms that the fault
impedance locus correctly settles on the intersection of the line
impedance characteristic (red line) and the boundary of the
forward-looking Zone 1 mho characteristic (blue circle) of the
relay at A as would be expected for a case with no load
transfer, remote infeed or mutual coupling. The hardware-inloop relay connected at A was found to issue a Zone 1 trip for
this fault location, and a Zone 2 trip for the same fault situated
slightly further (81%) along the line, thus confirming the Zone
1 settings of both hardware and software relays.

7.33333

X (Ohms)

A. No Mutual Coupling
To establish a base case, the real-time model was first used
to study the system with the topology shown in Fig. 1 (both
lines in service) but with no mutual coupling represented
between circuits AB and CD. In these studies, and those to
follow, the system was intentionally considered with no load
transfer down the lines, and no source beyond Bus R in order
to remove the additional complicating effects of load transfer
and remote-end infeed on the impedances seen by the relay at
A, at least for this phase of the research study.

2.66667

0.33333

-2
-6

-3.66667

-1.33333

3.33333

5.66667

R (Ohms)

Figure 5: Impedance measured by C-phase ground element of the relay at A

for a C-g fault located 80% along the line AB; both lines in service and
mutual coupling between the lines represented; d = 34 m.

Fig. 5 shows the impedance seen by the real-time model

of the relay at A for a C-g fault located 80% along the line (i.e.
at the intended reach of Zone 1). Comparison of the loci in
Figs. 4 and 5 illustrates graphically the underreaching of the
Zone 1 elements at A when mutual coupling is represented: in
Fig. 5 the impedance locus now settles on a point somewhat to
the right of the line characteristic and beyond the boundary of
the Zone 1 characteristic of the relay at A, even though the
fault is of the same type and location as that considered in the
results shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 6 shows the impedance seen by

978-1-61284-993-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

IEEE Africon 2011 - The Falls Resort and Conference Centre, Livingstone, Zambia, 13 - 15 September 2011

the real-time model of the relay at the remote end of the line
(relay B) for a C-g fault located 20% along the line from A
(i.e. at the intended reach of the remote-end relays Zone 1).
By contrast with Fig. 5, Fig. 6 shows that the impact of mutual
coupling causes the relay at the remote end to overreach
noticeably for this system condition. The behaviour of the
relays at both A and B is therefore consistent with that
expected from the analysis in [1] for mutually-coupled parallel
lines under these test conditions.
12

ZCIM1r4 vs ZCRE1r4

AvonMersey1M

Z1 Z2 Z3

9.66667

that Zone 2 could no longer provide guaranteed coverage of

the line AB. To consider this possibility, the C-g fault was
moved to 100% along the line AB (i.e. just in front of relay
B) with mutual coupling represented and the distance between
the lines set at 34 m. Fig. 8 shows the impedance seen by the
relay at A for this fault when the relays are left open loop (trip
signals not operating the circuit breakers). The results confirm
that even for a distance of 34 m between the circuits, the
extent of the underreaching in Zone 2 at relay A due to mutual
coupling is sufficient to cause the impedance locus for a fault
at the end of the line to settle just outside the Zone 2
characteristic, passing only briefly into and back out of the
characteristic during its transient response.

X (Ohms)

7.33333

2.66667

0.33333

-2
-6

-3.66667

-1.33333

3.33333

5.66667

Figure 7: Percentage error in Zone 1 reach for C-g fault at 80% along line AB
versus distance between coupled lines when both lines are in service.

R (Ohms)

Figure 6: Impedance measured by C-phase ground element of the relay at B

for a C-g fault located 20% along the line AB; both lines in service and
mutual coupling between the lines represented; d = 34 m.

100 %

(1)

This study was then repeated for a range of different

distances d (cf. Fig. 3) between the mutually coupled circuits
AB and CD in the system model. Fig. 7 shows the error in the
reach of the Zone 1 element of the relay at A as the distance
between the coupled circuits was varied from 7.9 m to 1000
m. As expected, as the distance between the circuits increases
and the strength of the magnetic coupling effects between the
two lines diminishes, the magnitude of the error in the reach of
the relay likewise decreases.
However, the results in Fig. 7 indicate that even at the
small values of inter-line spacing typical of double circuit
lines mounted on a single tower (7.9 m), the error in the
Zone 1 reach is only on the order of 6%. These findings are
therefore in broad agreement with the observations made in
the literature [1,2] that, at least with both lines in service, the
impact of mutual coupling on Zone 1 reaches is not of
significant concern. However, the underreaching of the
impedance measurement of relay A due to mutual coupling
seen in Fig. 5 could potentially be of more concern in the
relays Zone 2 element if it were to occur to such an extent

ZCIM1r3 vs ZCRE1r3

AvonMersey1M

Z1 Z2 Z3

9.66667

7.33333

X (Ohms)

In order to quantify the extent of the underreaching of the

Zone 1 elements at A due to mutual coupling when both lines
are in service, the C-g fault in the real-time model was moved
progressively closer toward the relay in order to find the
distance-to-fault at which the hardware relay again issued a
Zone 1 trip. The error in the Zone 1 reach due to mutual
coupling was then calculated as

12

2.66667

0.33333

-2
-6

-3.66667

-1.33333

3.33333

5.66667

R (Ohms)

Figure 8: Impedance measured by C-phase ground element of the relay at A

for a C-g fault located 100% along the line AB when both relays operate
open-loop; both lines in service and mutual coupling between the lines
represented; d = 34 m.

Based solely on the information in the impedance plot in

Fig. 8, there is no guarantee that the protection at A would
operate for this end-of-line fault, so the real-time model was
used to study the performance of the full protection scheme in
response to this fault with the relays operating in closed loop.
Fig. 9 now shows the response of the relays at both ends of the
line to this fault, indicating that the POR scheme does appear
to operate as would normally be expected for a fault located at
one end of the line: relay B trips at high speed, since the fault
is in its Zone 1, and relay A trips shortly afterwards, having
received a permissive carrier signal from relay B at the remote
end. However, close inspection of the relay signals in Fig. 9
shows that the relay at A does not initially see the fault in
Zone 2, since it issues its permissive signal to the remote end

978-1-61284-993-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

IEEE Africon 2011 - The Falls Resort and Conference Centre, Livingstone, Zambia, 13 - 15 September 2011

relay only after the remote relay has tripped. In other words,
relay A does not initially see the fault in Zone 2, even though
the fault is on the protected line, because of the effect of
mutual coupling. Once the relay at the remote end trips, it
clears the current feeding into the fault from that end, and
hence there is no longer any zero sequence current in the
neighbouring line CD to cause mutual coupling effects on the
relay at A; at this point, relay A sees the fault for the first time
(in its Zone 2) and, having already received a permissive
signal from the relay at B, is able to trip without time delay.

These results show that, although the relays ultimately

both tripped for this fault, had relay B not successfully
operated for any reason (e.g. breaker failure), relay A would
not have detected the fault and been able to trip, even with the
aid of permissive signaling from the remote end. This study
thus demonstrates the important impact that mutual coupling
can have on protection scheme reliability, as well as the kind
of insight that can be gained into such issues by being able to
study the closed-loop interactions between multiple relays in a
protection scheme using real-time simulators.
In addition, as argued earlier, there are other practical
contingencies in which the impact of mutual coupling can be
even more problematic. The next section therefore examines
the impact of mutual coupling during one such contingency.

Figure 9: Response of the protection relays at A and B to the same C-g fault
considered in Fig. 8 (100% along the line AB) when the relays are connected
closed-loop.
15

ZCIM1r3 vs ZCRE1r3

AvonMersey1M

Z1 Z2 Z3

C. Mutual Coupling One Line Out Of Service

With mutual coupling between the circuits AB and CD still
represented in the real-time model, the topology of the system
was changed to that shown in Fig. 2, with line CD out of
service and grounded at each end. The Zone 1 elements of
both the hardware relay and the real-time relay model
connected at A were now found to overreach for a C-g fault on
line AB. Fig. 11 shows the impedance seen by the real-time
model of the relay at A for a C-g fault located 80% along the
line (i.e. at the intended reach of Zone 1). The locus of the
impedance seen by the relays ground element now settles on
a point somewhat to the left of the line characteristic and is
now well inside the boundary of the Zone 1 mho characteristic
of the relay at A, even though the fault is actually situated at
the edge of the intended Zone 1 reach of the relay. Once again,
these results obtained with the real-time simulator are
consistent with theoretical studies elsewhere [1,2,3].

12.16667

12

X (Ohms)

9.33333

AvonMersey1M

Z1 Z2 Z3

9.66667

6.5

7.33333

X (Ohms)

3.66667

0.83333

2.66667

-2
-6

ZCIM1r3 vs ZCRE1r3

-3.66667

-1.33333

3.33333

5.66667

0.33333

R (Ohms)

Figure 10: Impedance measured by C-phase ground element of the relay at A

during the C-g fault test shown in Fig. 9 (100% along the line AB) when the
relays are connected closed-loop.

This effect is further illustrated in Fig. 10, which shows the

impedance measured by the real-time relay model at A during
the response in Fig. 9. Fig. 10 shows that the impedance locus
initially follows the same trajectory seen earlier in Fig. 8 but,
at the instant relay B operates to clear the fault at the remote
end (shown by the asterisk in Fig. 10), the impedance locus
changes trajectory and moves towards the true location of the
fault at the end of the line characteristic within Zone 2, such
that relay A can then trip permissively; at this point the locus
moves back out of the fault zone characteristic.

-2
-6

-3.66667

-1.33333

3.33333

5.66667

R (Ohms)

Figure 11: Impedance measured by C-phase ground element of relay A for a

C-g fault located 80% along the line AB; line CD out of service and grounded
at each end; mutual coupling between the lines represented; d=34m.

In order to quantify the extent of the overreaching of the

Zone 1 elements at A due to mutual coupling when one line is
out of service and grounded, the C-g fault in the real-time
model was then moved progressively further from the relay in
order to find the distance-to-fault at which the hardware relay
stopped issuing a Zone 1 trip. The error in the Zone 1 reach
due to mutual coupling was then calculated using eqn. (1).

978-1-61284-993-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

IEEE Africon 2011 - The Falls Resort and Conference Centre, Livingstone, Zambia, 13 - 15 September 2011

Fig. 12 shows the error in the reach of the Zone 1 element

of the relay at A as the distance between the coupled circuits
was varied from 7.9 m to 1000 m. As with the previous study
(both lines in service), as the distance between the circuits
increases and the strength of magnetic coupling effects
between the two lines diminishes, the magnitude of the error
in the reach of the relay likewise decreases. However, the
results in Fig. 12 illustrate that for this particular system
topology, the errors in Zone 1 reach caused by mutual
coupling are significantly larger than when the system is
running with both lines in service.

Fig. 12: Percentage error in Zone 1 reach for C-g fault at 80% along line AB
versus distance between coupled lines when line CD is out of service and
grounded at both ends.

The results indicate that at the small values of inter-line

spacing typical of double circuit lines mounted on a single
tower (7.9 m), the error in Zone 1 reach can be as high as
25%, whilst even at inter-circuit spacings of 20 to 40 m
(typical of lines running on different towers in the same
servitude) the error can approach 20%. These errors are
therefore of significant concern, since they could conceivably
result in the Zone 1 element of a distance relay reaching
beyond the end of the protected line into other lines. Since the
Zone 1 elements in a permissive overreaching scheme are fastacting and unsupervised in nature, overreaching of such
elements into other lines constitutes a serious threat to system
security and would need to be considered carefully when
designing distance protection schemes for parallel circuit
topologies.
The results in Fig. 12 require careful consideration not just
because of the extent and nature of the Zone 1 reach errors,
but also because even the use of mutual compensation features
available in modern distance relays would be unable to correct
these reach errors for this particular system condition. To
ensure system integrity, the relays in such a parallel line
system would therefore have to be designed with significantlyreduced Zone 1 reach settings; these settings could either be
switched to temporarily as an alternative settings group during
line outages as proposed in [1], or accepted as a permanent
compromise as in [3] depending on the preferred practice of
the utility. However, the results obtained with the real-time
models in this study have confirmed that the extent of the
errors caused by mutual coupling, even in lines separated by
relatively large spacings of 20 to 40 m, is of sufficient concern
to warrant a specialised settings design of some sort.
V.

CONCLUSION

mutual coupling between parallel transmission lines on the

performance of modern, numerical distance protection relays.
The results have confirmed that the real-time models are able
to replicate the expected behaviour, known qualitatively from
the literature, of mutually coupled transmission circuits and
their impact on protective relays.
However, the particular value of the real-time simulation
environment is that this behaviour can then be studied
quantitatively, using actual protective relay hardware
connected to a real-time simulation model whose parameters
represent a practical parallel-line topology from the field. The
results of such detailed quantitative studies using the real-time
simulator have confirmed the extent of the likely reach errors
in a distance protection scheme in a practical field example,
and support the findings made in [3] regarding the need to
consider mutual coupling effects explicitly and carefully when
designing distance protection schemes in parallel-line
topologies, even in cases where the inter-circuit distances are
of the order of several tens of meters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of
eThekwini Electricity and the Durban University of
Technology, and the guidance of Adam Bartylak of Eskom
System Operations & Planning.
REFERENCES
[1]

Apostolov A, Tholomier D, Sambasivan S, Richards S, Protection of

Double Circuit Transmission Lines, Proceedings of the 60th Annual
Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, College Station, TX, pp.
85-101, 2007.
[2] Calero F, Mutual Impedance in Parallel Lines Protective Relaying
and Fault Location Considerations, Proceedings of the 27th Annual
Western Protective Relay Conference, Spokane WA, October 2000.
[3] Nofuya K, Bartylak A, Impact of Transmission Lines Mutual Coupling
on Protection Settings, Report for Eskom System Operations &
Planning, Rev. 0, Dec. 2010.
[4] McLaren P G, Kuffel R, Wierckx R, Giesbrecht J, Arendt L, A Real
Time Digital Simulator For Testing Relays, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan 1992, pp. 207 213.
[5] Nagoorsamy N C, Rigby B S: Investigation of High-Resistance Faults
and the Weak-End Infeed Phenomenon in Distance Protection,
Proceedings SAUPEC 2007, Cape Town, South Africa, 25 26 January
2007, ISBN 978-0-7992-2367-5, pp. 155 160.
[6] Leoaneka M C, Rigby B S: Investigation Into Under-Reaching Of
Distance Relays In Heavily Series Compensated Transmission Networks,
Proceedings SAUPEC 2008, Durban, South Africa, 24 25 January 2008,
ISBN 978-1-86840-6593, pp. 115 121.
[7] ALSTOM, Network Protection and Automation Guide, First Edition,
July 2002, ISBN 2-9518589-0-0.
[8] McLaren P G, Fernando I, Lin H, Dirks E, Swift G W: Enhanced Double
Circuit Line Protection, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 12,
No. 3, July 1997, pp. 1100 1108.
[9] SEL-421 Relay Protection and Automation System Reference Manual,
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc., USA, 2006.
[10] Oullette D S, Wierckx R P, McLaren P G, Using a Multi-Threaded
Time-Step to Model a Multi-Function Relay in a Real-Time Digital
Simulator, Proceedings of the IET 9th International Conference on
Developments in Power System Protection, Glasgow, March 2008, ISBN
978-0-86341-902-7, pp. 162 167.

This paper has described the results of an investigation into

the use of a real-time digital simulator to study the impact of

978-1-61284-993-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE