> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Experimental Evaluation of Power Differential
Relay for Transmission Line Protection
H. A. Darwish, SMIEEE A.-M. Taalab, SMIEEE E. S. Ahmed O. P. Malik, Fellow IEEE
Abstract— An experimental evaluation of a power differential
relay is conducted and the results are described. The
experimental setup consists of a generator connected to the
network via a transmission line protected by the power
deferential relay. The relay input signals, fundamental active and
reactive powers, are locally computed from the complex product
of the current and voltage phasors at each end on sample-by-
sample basis. The relay setting is refined and it is examined for
different internal and external fault conditions as well as during
power swings. Response of the active and reactive power
detectors is evaluated in the time domain. Test cases provide
evidence of the efficacy of the proposed technique.
Index Terms— Power differential relay, transmission line
protection.
I. INTRODUCTION
D IFFERENTIAL protection is a reliable method of
protecting generators, transformers, buses, and
transmission lines from the effects of internal faults. The main
benefits of this protection type are isolating the faulty unit
accurately and fast.
Recently, enhanced communication systems have become
available to apply the differential algorithms for transmission
line protection. However, transmission of the electrical signal
data initiates some misalignment problems that can be
partially overcome by the power differential scheme
introduced in [1]. This algorithm depends on computing the
active and reactive power and then applying the differential
rules to differentiate the fault from normal operation and
external faults. An extended study to introduce adaptive
setting and to test the relay under dynamic conditions has
been discussed in [2] and [3], respectively.
In this paper, the power differential relay has been
implemented and evaluated by experiments on a physical
system in the Power Systems Research Laboratory at the
University of Calgary. The evaluation is carried out at
different internal and external fault cases and during power
swings. The active and reactive power, which are the
algorithm input signals, are computed by DFT-based voltage
and current phasors measurements as well as the relay setting
functions are refined.
H. Darwish and A. Taalab are with the Electrical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Shebin El-Kom 32511, Minoufiya Unversity, Egypt.
E. Ahmed is with Ministry of Electricity and Energy (MEE), Rural
Electrification Authority, Egypt.
O.P. Malik is with the University of Calgary, Canada.
978-1-4244-3811-2/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE
1
II. POWER DIFFERENTIAL RELAY PRINCIPLES FOR
TRANSMISSION LINE PROTECTION
The power differential relay [1, 2] can be explained with
the help of Fig. 1. The current and voltage signals are
measured, sampled, and fed to the optimized parallel DFT
filter to extract the phasor quantities as shown in Fig. 1.a. This
DFT algorithm is an exclusive solution that guarantees
efficient phasor estimation and prevents any possible
numerical instability associated with the execution of the
recursive DFT on floating point CPU [4]. The fundamental
active and reactive powers are locally computed from the
complex product of the current and voltage phasors at each
end on sample-by-sample basis. This is considered a
substantial improvement of the power differential relay
concept compared with the instantaneous power equations
previously reported [1]-[3]. Emergence of the DFT has
revealed a bilateral advantage. The power differential
algorithm is fed by the fundamental power only, with no
contribution of other harmonic power components. In
addition, the band pass filter, addressed in [1]-[2], is not
required any more. Thus, a simplification in the hardware is
produced as only traditional second order low pass anti-
aliasing filter, Butterworth type, with cut-off frequency of 100
Hz, is quite sufficient as a pre-stage for the analog signals.
Note that stability of the DFT to small frequency excursions is
much higher than the instantaneous power equations
particularly from the standpoint of Q expression.
Then, the power difference (∆P=PS-PR) and power through
(Pav=[PS+PR]/2) are computed relying on an existing
communication channel for data transfer, where PS and PR are
the sending end and receiving end power values, respectively.
Similarly, the reactive power algorithm is processed
considering the reactive power values at the sending (QS) and
receiving (QR) ends. The difference (ΔQ) and reactive power
through (Qav) are also computed in a way similar to the active
power. Then, ΔP, Pav, ΔQ, and Qav are conveniently used to
feed the relay logic diagram of Fig. 1.b. This logic diagram is
fully described in [1]-[2]. The union action of the active and
reactive powers provides a complement in addition to some
overlapping as far as the type of fault, the range of fault
resistance, and power angle swings are concerned.
The active and reactive power settings of the power
differential relay have been proposed to fulfill the maximum
internal fault sensitivity and external fault stability under the
worst conditions [2]. The active power setting is refined and
expressed by:
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 2

Bus1 Bus2
ΔP ⎛ 1 − K1 ⎞
ΔPset = K1ΔPmax + max ⎜⎜ ⎟ Pav (1) S
VS VR
R
Pmax ⎝ K1 ⎟⎠
For Pav ≤ K1 Pmax VS IS IR VR
o
where ΔPmax is the difference power at power angle δ=180 , DFT DFT DFT DFT
Pmax is the through power at power angle δ=90o, K1 is a
multiplier, which determines the maximum value of ΔPset at Data exchange
power angle δ=0o and 180o. A value of 1.75 for K1 is adopted. PS+JQS PR+JQR
This refined setting equation is also presented in [3]. This
equation is certainly simpler than that of the inverse sine Pav=(PS+ PR)/2 & ΔP=PS -PR
proposed in [2].
The second segment is expressed as:
Qav =(QS+QR)/2 & ΔQ=QS -QR
K 2 ΔPmax ΔPmax ΔP or ΔQ Pav or Qav
ΔPset = + Pav (2)
( K 2 − K1 ) Pmax (K1 − K 2 ) Fault detector comparators
a. ΔP, Pav, ΔQ, and Qav extraction diagram for phase a.

For K1 Pmax < Pav ≤ K 2 Pmax ΔQ(a) dΔQ/dt Comparator 1 dΔQ/dt(set)

where K2 is the power through multiplier, which determines
Inhibit for PS S
the horizontal setting limit of Pav. It is set at a value of 1.9. Comparator & To Trip
The P-detector setting described by (1) and (2) is 2 OR2
ΔQset
considered as following. The relay is started with calculations ΔQset Inhibit for
Comparator L-L fault
of the values ΔP and Pav. The measured value of Pav is used to ΔQ(b) 3 &
compute the setting ΔPset from (1) or (2) based on the Pav
OR1

ΔQset
value. Then, comparing ΔP with ΔPset provides decision of the Comparator &

L-L-L fault
Enable for
ΔQ(c)
power relay. 4
On the other hand, the reactive power detector setting of
[2] has been utilized with a modification in its parameters &
only. It consists of merely two straight line segments ΔPset Comparator
expressed by the following equations: ΔP(a) 5

ΔQset = K 3Qav + K 4 ΔQC (3)

for Qav ≤ Q max / K 4
ΔQset = 2 ΔQmax (4)
3
for Qav ≥ Q max / K 4
where K4 is a factor, which is set to about 1.1. K3 is the slope
of the first segment and it is refined as K3=(0.66ΔQmax-
1.1ΔQc)/(Qmax/K4). However, ΔQmax and Qmax are the
maximum reactive power difference and average occurring at
δ =180o and 90o, respectively. If Qav<Qmax/K4 the active
portion of the setting will be given by (3). Otherwise, setting
will be governed by (4).
Summarizing the procedure for relay setting is that
Equations (1) and (2) are used for the active power setting
while Equations (3) and (4) are for the reactive power setting.
Therefore, five parameters have to be estimated; Pmax, ΔPmax,
Qmax, ΔQmax and ΔQc. The values of these parameters can be
determined from the transmission line ratings as addressed in
[2]. Therefore, the protection engineer can effortlessly adjust
the relay setting. Considering the experimental setup
illustrated in the following section, these parameters values
are determined in subsection IV.A.
b. Block diagram of the power fault detector for phase a.
Fig. 1 Differential Power Relay [1], [2].
III. PHYSICAL MODEL OF A POWER SYSTEM IN LABORATORY
IMPLEMENTATION
A. Laboratory Setup:
A physical model of a single machine infinite bus power
system is available in the Power System Research Laboratory
at the University of Calgary. It consists of a DC motor and
synchronous generator set. Combination of π section units of
inductance and capacitor are used to simulate transmission
line. Each unit represents a 50 km length of actual
transmission line. Total 12 units are available to form
different lengths of transmission lines. An overall schematic
diagram of this physical model is given in Fig. 2.
The separately excited 220 V DC, 30 A, 1800 RPM, 7.5 hp,
40/20/10 V DC excitation, DC machine is acting as the
turbine. The synchronous micro-alternator, working as the
generator, is 220/127 V AC, 7.9 A, 3 kVA (chosen as power
base for per unit system), 3 phase, 60 Hz, 0.8 power factor
lag. The parameters of this machine are given in Appendix A.
An electrical device called the Time Constant Regulator
(TCR) is used to set the effective field time constant of the
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
micro-alternator to simulate the time constant of a large
generator. With TCR, the effective field time constant of the
micro-alternator can be set as large as 10s.
Two transmission line models are employed for the lab
tests. A 500 kV, 600 km, single transmission line, formed by
connecting all 12 units in series, is used for dynamic limit test.
In this case, the generator has a lower active power limit for
transmission. For the other tests, a 500kV, 300 km, double
circuit transmission line is used. Each circuit consists of 6 π
sections connected in series. The generator is also equipped
with a conventional AVR to control the terminal voltage of
the generating unit. A PC with a DAQ card AT-MIO-16E-2
from National Instruments and real time workshop software
environment from Matlab can produce V_pss control signal.
A variety of disturbances can be applied to the system. A
switch in the excitation field circuit of the DC motor can be
used to accomplish step change of input torque of the
generator. Similarly, a step change of terminal voltage of the
generator can be realized by a switch on the Printed Circuit
Board of the AVR. In addition, various types of faults can be
applied to simulate large disturbances by a logic controller.
The operating condition of the generator, i.e. active power and
power factor, can also be changed by adjusting the armature
or field current of DC motor and terminal voltage of the
generator, respectively.
Fig. 2 An overall schematic diagram of the physical model
3
B. The configuration of tested system:
A schematic diagram of the experimental set up is shown
in Fig. 3. The protected transmission line is 300 km and
another 300 km transmission line is out of the protection
zone. The transmission line and the synchronous machine are
arranged according to Fig. 3 in which the transmission line is
fed from both ends. Circuit breakers should be preferably
included as indicated. The line and machine parameters
should be defined, as correctly as possible, for the positive,
negative, and zero sequences. The list of the utilized
equipment is given in Appendix B.
VS VR
300 kmLine 300 kmLine
500∠δo S R 500∠0o
kV
DAQ kV
δ
Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the performance of the power differential
relay is evaluated by the experimental signals measured using
the aforementioned setup.
A. Adjusting the relay setting:
It is worth mentioning here that computing the setting
constants for different transmission lines has been previously
given in a step by step procedure in [2], in which,
transmission line kV rating, series impedance, shunt
capacitance are only required to find Pmax, ΔPmax, ΔQmax, Qmax
and ΔQc. Considering this procedure, the parameters of (1)
and (4) are found as following. Pmax = 10.3 kW (1.0 pu), ΔPmax
= 1.832 kW (0.1778 pu), ΔQmax = 40.428 kVAR (3.92 pu),
Qmax = 457.9 VAR (0.044 pu), and ΔQc=784.66 VAR (0.076
pu). These parameters are used when a 300 km line is
protected as shown in Fig. 3. Accordingly, K3 is found equal
to 62.66. However K1, K2, and K4 are eventually universal
constant and they are equal to 1.75, 1.9 and 1.1, respectively.
The corresponding relay setting is depicted in Fig. 4.
The following steps are executed in real-time at each end of
the transmission line:
1) The 3-phase voltage and current samples are acquired at
both ends of the transmission line.
2) These values are input to optimized-DFT filters to
calculate the fundamental voltage and current phasors.
3) Then, active and reactive power values at each local end
are computed from the extracted phasor quantities.
4) Further, the corresponding through and difference
power values are obtained and compared with the setting
thresholds according to the relay detector logics diagram
shown in Fig. 1.b.
The following results are presented in per unit considering
the base equal to 10.3 kVA and 207.8 V (120 V/phase).
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 4

Difference active power (pu)

0.4 4
Active power setting 3

Current (pu)
0.3
2
0.2
1
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0 Time(sec)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Through active power (pu) 1.5
Difference reactive power (pu)

Voltage (pu)
3
1

2 0.5
Reactive power setting
0
1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec)

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 a. Measured phasors.
10 10 10 10 10
Through reactive power (pu)
2
Fig. 4 The relay setting. Difference Active Power
Active Power Setting
1

B. Testing the relay sensitivity

0
In this subsection, the relay sensitivity to the internal fault 0 0.5 1 1.5
Time(sec)
2 2.5 3

is tested. The measured waveforms for a single line to ground 0.4

fault occurring during the period from 1.26 s up to 1.41 s, Through Active Power

where the power transmitted over the line is zero, are shown 0.2

in Fig. 5. The fault distance is 50 km from the generator side

and its fault resistance is 10Ω. Also, the corresponding 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
monitoring of this fault case is shown in Fig. 6. This figure Time(sec)

illustrates the phasors measured by DFT, active power b. Measured active powers.
components (difference and through and setting) and reactive 3
power components (difference and through and setting)
2 Difference Reactive Power
computed at both ends. During the fault period the difference Reactive Power Setting
and through active powers are increased which indicates the 1

fault occurrence although the reactive power sensitivity is not 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
achieved. Time(sec)

1
Through Reactive Power
6
0.5
4

2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Current

0 Time(sec)

-2 c. Measured reactive powers.

-4
Fig. 6 Monitored results for the fault case shown in Fig. 5.
-6
1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45
Time(sec)
a. Faulty phase currents at the transmission line ends. The active power relay performance for single line to
2 ground fault at different load conditions and at different fault
distances is illustrated in Fig. 7. This figure confirms the
1 stability for normal operation and ensures the detection
sensitivity to the internal faults using the active power
Voltage

0 differential function. As the fault resistance is 10 Ω, the active

power algorithm is sufficient to detect these fault cases. The
-1
overall power relay response is sensitive to the faults
whatever the reactive power relay performance and as
-2
1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 concluded from the OR function depicted in Fig. 1.b.
Time(sec)
b. Faulty phase voltages at the transmission line ends.
Fig. 5 Measured current and voltage waveforms for a single line to ground fault.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 5

2
2 Difference Active Power
Difference Active Power Active Power Setting
Active Power Setting 1
1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Time(sec)
Time(sec)
a. Active power algorithm
a. Fault distance 0 km, fault resistance 10Ω and no load. 6
Difference Reactive Power
2 4 Reactive Power Setting
Difference Active Power
Active Power Setting 2
1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Time(sec)
Time(sec) b. Reactive power algorithm
b. Fault distance 0 km, fault resistance 10Ω and load 13kW, 6kVAR. Fig. 8 Relay performance for ground fault case at 50 km, 0 Ω and load 0 VA.

2 2
Difference Active Power Difference Active Power
Active Power Setting Active Power Setting
1 1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec) Time(sec)

c. Fault distance 100 km, fault resistance 10Ω and load 23kW, 6kVAR. a. Active power algorithm
6
2 Difference Reactive Power
Difference Active Power 4 Reactive Power Setting
Active Power Setting
1
2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec) Time(sec)

d. Fault distance 150 km, fault resistance 10Ω and no load. b. Reactive power algorithm
Fig. 9 Relay performance for phase fault case at 50 km, 0 Ω and load 0 VA.
2
Difference Active Power
Active Power Setting 0.3
1
0.2 Difference Active Power
Active Power Setting
0 0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec) 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
e. Fault distance 150 km, fault resistance 10Ω and load 23kW, 6kVAR. Time(sec)
3

Fig. 7 Active power relay for different internal single phase fault cases. Difference Reactive Power
2
Reactive Power Setting
1

Other fault cases are considered to test the relay 0

performance as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. In these fault cases, 0 0.5 1 1.5
Time(sec)
2 2.5 3

the transmission line is not connected to the network, i.e., the a. Fault distance 0 km, fault resistance 10 Ω and no load.
line is energized only from the generator end. These figures 0.4

illustrate the performance for ground and phase faults. The

figures ensure the relay sensitivity. Also, they ensure the 0.2 Difference Active Power
Active Power Setting
reactive power algorithm sensitivity for low fault resistance.
0
C. Testing the relay stability for external faults 0 0.5 1 1.5
Time(sec)
2 2.5 3

3
The power relay performance for external ground faults
when the fault distance is zero and resistance 10 Ω at 2 Difference Reactive Power

different load conditions is shown in Fig. 10. This figure Reactive Power Setting
1
verifies the relay stability against the external faults.
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec)
b. Fault distance 0 km, fault resistance 10 Ω and load 13 kW, 6 kVAR.
Fig. 10 Power relay performance for external faults.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 6

D. Testing the relay stability against power swing: 0.4

Relay performance when the transmission line is connected 0.3

to the network at 1.0 s and then disconnected at 2.4 s is shown 0.2 Difference Active Power
Active Power Setting
in Fig. 11. Relay performance during two power swing cases 0.1
is shown in Fig. 12. These figures confirm the relay stability
for the active power relay. However, there are some points of 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

instability for the reactive power relay, in which the relay Time(sec)
3
response is inhibited for the power swing by evaluating the
rate of change of the reactive power as discussed in [2] and as 2
shown in the block diagram depicted in Fig. 1.b. Difference Reactive Power
Reactive Power Setting
1

V. CONCLUSIONS
0
A power differential relay has been evaluated by 0 0.5 1 1.5
Time(sec)
2 2.5 3

experiments on a physical model. The evaluation has been 0.2

accomplished at different fault conditions and at different Through Reactive Power
power swings. To help the protection engineer adjust the relay 0.15

setting, the relay setting functions have been refined still 0.1

keeping its reliability. The relay parameters have been 0.05

determined from the line parameters and ratings. The
0
improvement involves the utilization of the DFT to compute 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec)
the fundamental differential power values rather than the a. Case 1
instantaneous power equations. Ascertaining sensitive and 0.4
secure differential power relay has been verified.
0.3

Difference Active Power

APPENDIX 0.2
Active Power Setting
0.1
A. PHYSICAL MODEL OF POWER SYSTEM
0
The parameters of micro-alternator 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec)
X d = 1.2 X q = 1.2 X D = 1.25 X Q = 1.25 X F = 1.27
3
rd = 0.0026 rq = 0.0026 rD = 0.0083 rQ = 0.0083 rF = 0.000747
X md = 1.129 X mq = 1.129 H = 4.75 2
Difference Reactive Power
The parameters of each π-section of the transmission line 1 Reactive Power Setting
R = 0.031, L = 1.85 mH, C= 8.03 μF.
Physical rated parameters of DC machine 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
220 V DC, 30 A, 1800 RPM, 7.5 hp, excitation 40/20/10 V. Time(sec)

Physical rated parameters of synchronous micro-alternator: 0.2

220/127 V AC, 7.9 A, 3 kVA , 3 phase, 60 Hz, a power factor 0.15
Through Reactive Power

of 0.8 lagging.
0.1

0.05
0.4
0
0.3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec)
Difference Active Power
0.2
Active Power Setting b. Case 2
0.1 Fig. 12 Power relay performance during power swing.

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec) B. List of Equipment:
3
DAQ with at least 16 analog inputs with high sampling rate,
Difference Reactive Power 600 km transmission line prototype arranged as in Fig. 3,
2
Reactive Power Setting Synchronous M/C set-up,
1
3-phase static load, Resistor, 9 CT’s, 6 VT’s,
3 CB’s preferably programmable,
0 16 PNC/Alligators connectors between CTs &VTs, and DAQ.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec)
Fig. 11 Power relay performance during switching. .
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 7

REFERENCES
[1] H. Darwish, A. Taalab and E. Ahmed "Investigation of power differential
concept for line protection" IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 20, no.
2, pp. 617 - 624, April 2005.
[2] A. Taalab, H. Darwish and E. Ahmed "Performance of Power Differential
Relay with Adaptive Setting for Line Protection" IEEE Trans. on Power
Delivery, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 50 - 58, Jan. 2007.
[3] T. Kawady, A. Taalab and E. Saad "Dynamic Behavior of the Power
Differential Relay for Transmission Line Protection" Electrical Power
System Research (under review).
[4] H. Darwish and M. Fiki "Practical Considerations for Recursive DFT
Implementation in Numerical Relays" IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 42 - 49, Jan. 2007.