Presentation 0.

Commissioning of a distributed busbar protection using a system-oriented

test in the field

Florian Fink, OMICRON electronics GmbH, Austria, florian.fink@omicron.at

Thomas Hensler, OMICRON electronics GmbH, Austria, thomas.hensler@omicron.at
Frank Trillenberg, NRM Netzdienste Rhein-Main GmbH, Germany, f.trillenberg@nrm-netzdienste.de
Jrg Kppel, ABB AG, Germany, joerg.koeppel@de.abb.com

existing one so that it could replace the old system

Abstract
In a substation in Frankfurt the existing busbar
protection is replaced by a new distributed numerical
busbar protection. Therefore the new busbar
protection is installed in parallel to the existing one
and should replace it after commissioning. The new
busbar protection provides a separate zero sequence
differential protection. Since the 110kV network for
the city of Frankfurt is low-impedance grounded,
single phase to ground faults can cause fault currents
on the busbars, which are only slightly higher than the
load currents. Using a dedicated zero sequence
differential element does avoid an over-stabilization
of the differential protection.
With a system-oriented approach for testing the
distributed busbar protection it is possible to inject
currents into all field units simultaneously and
conduct a complete test of the whole protection
system. Within a new application software the
topology of the busbar is modelled, so that the all the
transient currents (optional voltages) can be
calculated for the different fault and operation
scenarios automatically using a dynamic network
simulation. These signals can be applied to the
protection using multiple test devices, which are
time-synchronized using GPS, and all the reactions of
the binary signals from both the central protection
unit and all field units can be analysed and assessed
within the software immediately.
Using an iterative closed-loop approach the test
software can simulate fault scenarios, where a correct
reaction of the protection system is considered in the
transient simulation. A detailed analysis and
assessment of the selective operation of the breaker-
failure protection and the behaviour for faults in the
dead zone between the CT and the circuit breaker in
the coupling field is possible.
1 Introduction
The utility Netzdienste Rhein-Main GmbH (NRM) did
a retrofit project to replace a busbar protection in
substation Kruppstrae in Frankfurt (Main),
Germany. Within this project the existing busbar
protection was replaced by a distributed busbar
protection REB500 from ABB. Therefore first the new
protection system was installed in parallel to the
finally. A big advantage of the new numerical busbar
protection is its separate zero sequence current
measurement and its dedicated zero sequence
differential elements. The 110kV network for the city
of Frankfurt (Main) is low-impedance grounded, so
that fault currents for single-phase-to-ground faults
on the cable network are only slightly higher than the
high load currents on the busbars. Using a dedicated
zero sequence differential element avoids an over-
stabilization of the protection behaviour.
Figure 1: 110kV GIS in substation Kruppstrae
With a system-oriented approach for the test of this
distributed busbar protection it is possible to inject
the test quantities into all distributed field units
simultaneously using multiple test devices. So a
complete system test of the whole protection system
is possible. First in the new application software
OMICRON RelaySimTest the topology of the busbar as
a primary system has to be modelled (see Figure 2).
Then the exact transient signals for the currents
(optional even voltages) for all injection points for the
different fault or operation scenarios are calculated
from the test software using a network simulation.
These transients can be injected to the protection
system immediately using multiple OMICRON CMC
test devices, which are time-synchronized using a
GPS-receiver. The binary inputs of the test devices
record the reactions of the central unit and all field
units for all these simulation cases, so that this can be
used for analysis and assessment in the application
software immediately.

OMICRON 2015 International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 0.2

2.1 Binary signals from the separate

central unit
Since the central unit is calculating the overall
assessment of the protection system, the binary
signals annunciation alarm differential current,
annunciation busbar protection trip and
annunciation breaker failure were recorded there.
The central unit is located about 20m from the next
field unit, and from the next test device too. Therefore
an additional binary inputs/outputs extension device
OMICRON ISIO 200 was used. This devices allows the
recording of binary signals which are forwarded as
IEC 61850 GOOSE message using a simple network
Figure 2: Modelling of the busbar topology within the connection to a CMC test device, which are then,
application software together with the information from all binary signals
from the filed units, are accessible in the application
2 Test setup software.

The double busbar substation Kruppstrae has ten
active bays, where one ABB REB500 field unit is
installed each. Into each field unit a CMC test devices
injects one current triple and records the binary
signals for trip, annunciation busbar trip and
annunciation breaker failure. Because the CMC test
devices are capable to output two current triples, for
some cases one test device was used to inject into two
neighbouring field units.
2.2 Communication to the test devices
For the communication between the test devices, the
binary input/output extension device and the
controlling PC, an Ethernet network was built up in
the substation. The application software can control
all 6 CMC test devices using this network, replay the
calculated transient current signals on the
corresponding test devices and record all binary
signals.

ABB REB500
fild units

CMCs

PTP-Transparent
Switch

ISIO200

CMGPS588
ABB REB500 PTP GMC
central unit
Laptop with
RelaySimTest analog- and binary signals

Ethernet connections

Figure 3: Scheme of the test setup

OMICRON 2015 International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 0.3

For the time synchronization of the CMC test devices 2.3 Overview of the equipment used
a GPS-receiver CMGPS 588 was used, which provides
a precise time synchronization using IEEE 1588 PTP In total the following equipment was used:
(Precision Time Protocol) over the existing Ethernet 6 OMICRON CMC test devices
connections. The CMGPS 588 device operates as an 1 binary input/output extension device
IEEE 1588 grandmaster clock, which forwards the OMICRON ISIO 200
time information to all CMC test devices over the 1 switch Hirschmann Mach 1040
network. For the Precision Time Protocol the IEEE 1 GPS-receiver OMICRON CMGPS588
1588 power profile was used, which requires a PTP-
about 300 m Ethernet cable (including 5
transparent switch, so that the required time
Ethernet cable reels),
precision ( 100 ns) can be guaranteed between all
more than 100 measurement leads, many
switch ports.
with length of 6 and 10 m
a huge number of power cables and extension
socket outlets

Figure 5: The complete equipment for the protection

testing did fit into a small van

2.4 Configuration of the binary

input/output extension device ISIO
200
Figure 4: CMC test device connected to one ABB
REB500 field unit
After all test devices were built up and connected, the
GOOSE configuration for the ISIO 200 was done for
The overall setup with the 6 synchronized injecting the connected CMC device. Then the annunciations
CMC test devices was distributed over a distance of from the central unit could be recorded by the CMC
more than 60 m within the substation (see Figure 8). test device.
Thanks to the support from the managing coach of the
team of protection engineering, Uwe Weisenstein, the
complete setup could be done within not much more
than 3 hours.
The preparation of the overall test was very detailed
and important. Within a table all the necessary
equipment was listed and each test devices was
already marked for its used location.

Figure 6: Binary input/output extension device ISIO

200 connected to the central unit

OMICRON 2015 International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 0.4

3 Wiring check
Next the check of the wiring had to be done. Therefore
unsymmetrical currents were injected into one or two
bays using only one test device. This should show,
that the currents are measured correctly on the
individual field units and that the corresponding
binary signals can be recorded by the CMCs.

3.1 Simulation of CB and isolator

positions
For the simulation of the circuit breaker and isolator
positions NRM has developed a simulation box (see
Figure 7). This box was connected with each field unit
using a multi pin connector. Then it was possible to
control all necessary operating positions for the
complete substation almost as easy as within a
control room. For the tests the same operating
positions are taken over into the network topology of
the test software accordingly.

Figure 8: Six CMC test devices injecting into the whole

protection system in a synchronized way

4.1 Verification of the network

Figure 7: Simulation box from NRM to simulate the
isolator and CB positions
4 Simulation of fault scenarios
After finishing the setup for the tests, the following
tasks could be done quite easy. Within RelaySimTest
the network simulation was adapted to the
corresponding testing task, at the simulation box the
corresponding isolator positions were set so that
finally all the test shots could be executed. A rewiring
or change of the configuration was not necessary
anymore, which obviously eliminated a major source
for errors.
simulation
The test document for RelaySimTest has been
prepared in the office upfront. Therefore NRM
provided all the relevant network data and
parameters, such as the detailed topology of the
substation, an overview of all the short circuit
currents within the 110kV network as well as details
of the low-impedance start point grounding. Using
network infeeds and passive loads the load flow and
maximum as well as minimum short circuit currents
were adjusted within the software. With the
possibility to input capacitances at the network
infeeds, the capacitances of the remaining cable
network and the resulting zero sequence currents
could be simulated. These values were discussed once
again on site and verified, because they are the basis
for the following tests.
4.2 Extended wiring check using
simulation of stable load flow
Next the standard operation positions of the topology
was set with the simulation box and within the test
software. The topology was documented within the
test report as a comment for later tests. To verify
completely, that all test devices are connected
correctly and the configuration of the system fits to
the network simulation, a stable load flow was put out
for 30 seconds. Additionally is was possible to check
the data from the network simulation with the data in
the online monitor of the central unit. A wrong

OMICRON 2015 International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 0.5

configuration of one of the CT star point directions

could be found and fixed immediately. Additionally it
could be verified, that the protection system stays
stable for the various load flow scenarios.

4.3 Tested fault scenarios

Overall the following fault scenarios were tested:
Different faults on both busbars
Goal: Verification of the protection zone
selectivity
Faults on each busbar segment
Goal: Verification of the protection zone
selectivity
Fault within the dead zone in the coupling field
Goal: Verify that the fault in the dead zone is
recognized correctly from the central unit
and that the second busbar is tripped
additionally with some time delay
Faults outside of the protected area
Goal: Verification of the stability for external
faults
Faults outside of the protection area with
external start of the breaker failure function
Therefore a breaker failure from an external
protection relay was simulated using a binary output
of the test device. This signal was then applied to the
corresponding field unit during the simulation.
Internal faults with breaker failure protection
Goal: Simulation of the fault events with and
without Iterative-Closed-Loop
Faults with invalid position of the tie isolators
Goal: Verification of the behaviour of the
protection system when a busbar tie
isolator has a different physical position
then what is reported at the central unit
5 Analysis of fault scenarios
For the fault scenarios the trip times of the
corresponding field unit and of the central unit were
analysed. Depending on the type of fault the
assessment based on the trip time and/or no trip was
done. The corresponding binary signals could be
evaluated either visually directly or measured and
assessed automatically. Therefore after a test case all
the relevant information was available to do an
assessment and document this within a report.
Figure 9: Simulation of the fault scenarios using
RelaySimTest in the substation
Test of the circuit breaker failure
protection using Iterative-Closed-
Loop function
The Iterative-Closed-Loop function of RelaySimTest
has been proven as useful new test possibility for this
case too. Since breaker events within the simulated
primary system cannot be applied within the
simulation in real-time, RelaySimTest does repeat the
simulation until no more new changes of the CBs are
done by the protection system. In this example the
circuit breaker failure protection could be tested. If
the Iterative-Closed-Loop function is active a
normal trip of the protection system is received:
Fault inception trip command from the protection
system opening of the circuit breaker in the
simulation reset of the trip command from the
protection system
If the Iterative-Closed-Loop function is turned off, the
following case occurs:
Fault inception trip command from the protection
system trip of the breaker failure protection
Since here the circuit breaker is not opened by the
simulation, the protection system will still recognize
the simulated fault current which results in the
correct trip of the breaker failure protection.
6 Problem of not selective trips
for single-phase-to-ground
faults
During the protection testing the following two
problems could be observed together with single-
phase-to-ground faults on one of the busbars:
the affected busbar was tripped with a delay
time of about 70 ms
additionally the not affected busbar was tripped
too

OMICRON 2015 International Protection Testing Symposium

 Presentation 0.6

For other fault types this non-selectivity could not be The network calculation within the software provides
observed. In the beginning this false behaviour could all the test quantities and using a complete setup with
not be interpreted. After analysis of the fault various test devices almost all substations can be
recordings from the central unit of the protection it tested.
was obvious, that there was a wiring error in the
It could be shown, that smaller deviations, such as the
Holmgreen-circuit within the coupling field. The
wiring error described above, could not be found by a
terminals of the ground currents were connected
classical parameter test. If it is necessary to inject
wrong, so that the single-phase-to-ground fault
currents at three locations simultaneously, classical
currents over the coupling were interpreted wrong,
parameters tests are at its limits. For the utility NRM
which resulted in the false behaviour described
this was the first time to test a busbar protection in
above.
detail in the field. For the future it will be considered
to apply this approach for every new commissioning.
7 Advantages of a simulation-
based test in addition to a Literature
parameter test [1] Ziegler, G.: Numerical Differential Protection
The setting parameters of a protection relay are Principles and Applications, Publicis Publishing,
important and relevant for the function of a 2nd Edition, 2012
protection system. To verify that these values, [2] ABB: Distributed busbar protection REB500 -
calculated from the network calculation, work Operation Manual, 9th Edition (valid for software
correctly within the protection relay and are set version V7.60), ABB, 2011
correctly, is the main task of a classical parameter test
during commissioning. In a complex protection
system, as within a busbar protection, these
parameters are linked with a high number of logical
functions, which makes the overall test of the whole
system considerably
more difficult.
Therefore complex
tables have to be made,
where all the fault
cases which have to be
tested are described
and where all the
values to inject are
calculated individually.
This process can take
up to a whole week for
a bigger substation and
due to the numerous
rewirings necessary
and the manual
calculation of the test
quantities this is a huge
effort and very prone
to errors.
RelaySimTest offers
the possibility to
automate this test. The
effort to setup the test
is quite high (see
Figure 3), but if it is
done correctly once, a
complete system test
can be conducted in a
relatively short time,
without the need to
change the test setup.
Figure 10: Simulation of an inside fault with RelaySimTest

Figure 11:
OMICRON 2015 International Protection Testing Symposium
Figure 12:
 Presentation 0.7

About the Authors

Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Florian Fink
was born 1983 in Bergisch
Gladbach / Germany. He
received his diploma in
Electrical Power Engineering at
the University of Applied
Science in Cologne in 2009.
From 2009 until 2012 he
worked as project engineer for
Cegelec / Germany and from
2012 to 2013 as planning
engineer for InfraServ Knapsack / Germany. Since
2013 he is working for OMICRON electronics in
product management as an application engineer for
power system protection.
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Jrg Kppel
was born 1973 in Erzhausen /
Germany. He studied Electrical
Power Engineering at the
University of Applied Science
in Darmstadt / Germany,
where he received his diploma
in 1997. From 1997 until 2010
he worked for ABB Germany in
the area of power system
protection and control focused
on busbar protection. Since 2010 he is working in
project engineering for protection with a main focus
on busbar protection.

Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Hensler

was born in 1968 in Feldkirch
/ Austria. He received his
diploma (Masters Degree) in
Computer Science at the
Technical University of Vienna
in 1995. He joined OMICRON
electronics in 1995 where he
worked in application software
development in the field of
testing solutions for protection
and measurement systems. Additionally he is
responsible for product management for application
software for protection testing.

Dipl.-Ing. Frank Trillenberg

was born 1971 in Berlin. He
studied Electrical Engineering
at the Technical University in
Berlin, where we received his
diploma in 1999. From 1999 to
2010 he worked as a project
engineer for Balfour Beatty
Rail GmbH. Since 2010 he is
working for Netzdienste
Rhein-Main as a project and
operations manager for secondary protection.

OMICRON 2015 International Protection Testing Symposium