IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 40, NO.

4, JULY/AUGUST 2004

941

Proposed Methods to Determine Fault Point

X=R Ratio for Breaker Evaluation
Ketut Dartawan, Member, IEEE, and Conrad St. Pierre

AbstractANSI/IEEE and IEC standards provide procedures

that do a fairly good job in obtaining a single fault point
ratio
that will allow a conservative estimate of the dc component and,
therefore, the total fault current flowing in a breaker. However,
there are circuit configurations that result in overly conservative
or under conservative estimates of the fault
ratio. This paper
explores alternate methods using the information in a complex
impedance network reduction and presents an alternate method
that provides comparable
ratios and conservatism without
the need to preform dual network reductions.
Index TermsShort-circuit currents,

ratio.

I. INTRODUCTION

N the calculation of short-circuit currents for breaker evalratio can be a critical factor.
uation, the fault point
Both ANSI/IEEE C37.010-1999 [1] and IEC-61909-1988 [2]
ratio determined by the fundamental-freinfer that the bus
quency complex impedance network reduction may not result in
ratio to be used in determining the dc coma conservative
ponent of the short-circuit current. ANSI/IEEE C37.010-1999
network reduction to deterrecommends a separate and
ratio. While IEC-61909 allows several
mine the fault point
ratio. The
ratio is
methods to provide a conservative
important since it determines the amount of dc in the short-circuit current and its application to breaker withstand and interrupting time duties.
This paper proposes three methods to eliminate the second
network reduction required by ANSI/IEEE and IEC Standards.
These methods are IEC Method A variation, characteristic curratio current method. By using
rent method, and weighted
the information available in the fundamental frequency complex impedance network solution, the proposed methods mainratio
tain conservatism in the calculation of the fault point
and therefore in the asymmetrical short-circuit current.
This paper will first briefly explain ANSI/IEEE as well as
IEC methods, and then the paper explains the three proposed
ratio is premethods. A comparison of the fault point
sented.

Paper PID-04-09, presented at the 2003 IEEE Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical Conference, Houston, TX, September 1517, and approved
for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications
Society. Manuscript submitted for review September 18, 2003 and released for
publication May 7, 2004.
K. Dartawan is with Power Technologies, Inc, Schenectady, NY 12301-1058
USA (e-mail: ketut.dartawan@shawgrp.com).
C. St. Pierre is with Electric Power Consultants, LLC, Schenectady, NY
12306 USA (e-mail: conrad@capital.net).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2004.831268

II. ANSI/IEEE METHOD

ANSI/IEEE C37.010 Standard has the following words in
ratio. It states it should be noted that
reference to the
no completely accurate way exists of combining two parallel
into a single circuit with
circuits with different values of
one value of
. Paraphrasing the next few sentences in the
and
network reductions
ANSI/IEEE Standard, separate
gives a more accurate result than other reasonably simple
procedures and for practical cases errs on the conservative
side.
The method used to calculate the short-circuit current allows
a complex impedance reduction to determine the symmetrical
ratio is determined from a sepshort-circuit currents. The
arate resistance reduction with the reactance terms equal to zero
and a reactance reduction with the resistance terms equal to zero.
The dc component is a function of time and the fault point
ratio. The total fault current includes the ac and dc components
for first-cycle and interrupting time currents.
III. IEC METHOD
A similar statement is made in IEC-60 909-1988 about the
ratio from the complex network reduction. In Clause 5
it states In a mesh network there are several time constants.
That is why it is not possible to give an easy exact method of
calculating peak current and the dc current. Special methods
to calculate peak current with sufficient accuracy are given in
subclause 9.1.3.2. IEC-60909 then explains three methods to
adjust the current based on the fault point complex impedance
ratio or to calculate a modified
ratio.
The three IEC methods are as follows.
Method A: For the branches connected to the fault point,
arrange the symmetrical fault current contributions of each
branch in descending order by magnitude, then starting
with largest branch current begin adding next largest
branch current until at least 80% of the total fault current
is taken into account. From this 80% current grouping,
ratio and
find the branch impedance with the highest
ratio for all dc component calculations.
use that
ratio from the
Method B: Determine the fault point
complex impedance reduction. Increase the calculated
symmetrical ac current by 15%. Calculate the dc comratio and the
ponent from the complex network
increased symmetrical current.
Method C: Determine the ac symmetrical current magnitude from a complex network reduction. Perform a second
complex network reduction with all branch reactive components at 40% of their respective fundamental frequency

0093-9994/04$20.00 2004 IEEE

942

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 40, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2004

values. Take the new

ratio at the fault point and mulratio to determine
tiply the ratio by 2.5 and use this
the dc component.
IEC-60909 states that Method C is most accurate. Methods
A and B are more conservative. The authors believe Method B
is the most conservative, since the 15% increased symmetrical
short-circuit current generally over compensates for the under
ratio.
estimating errors in the complex impedance

Fig. 1.

Two-branch equivalent.

Fig. 2.

Three-branch equivalent.

IV. PROPOSED IEC METHOD A VARIATION

IEC Method A variation presented by the authors is shown in
ratio is determined
Table II. In this method the fault point
from the branch current phase angle using the equation
Fault point

ratio

Absolute value of largest

branch current
Phase angle of branch current
carry more than
of the
total fault current
(1)

From the branches that are carrying at least 10% current of the
total short-circuit, the highest branch
is used for the bus
ratio. An absolute value is used in the equation to prevent
a negative
ratio. This
ratio method is noted in the
tables as IEC A Option.

TABLE I
IMPEDANCE RANGE USED IN MODEL

while these impedances are higher than those normally

found in impedance networks, it is the ratio of impedances
that is important.

V. PROPOSED CHARACTERISTIC CURRENT METHOD

A method, which will be called the characteristic current
method (CCM) [3], is not mentioned in either IEEE/ANSI or
IEC Standards. The characteristic current method calculates
the dc component of each branch based on the phase angle of
the current flowing in it. Branch current flows having different
ratios) will have the current peak at slightly
phase angles (
different times before the first-half cycle [4][7]. To simplify
calculations, the dc component is taken at 0.5-cycle for all
branches using the expression in (2). The branch dc components
are summed and divided by the fault point symmetrical ac fault
current. These two quantities are used to determine the fault
ratio using (2)
point equivalent

ratio

Abs

(2)

After each dc component is determined and totaled, the equivalent fault point
ratio is found from (3)
Equiv Bus

(3)

ratio determined from the first half-cycle impedThe

ances is used for first-cycle and interrupting time calculations.

Fig. 3. Typical output waveform from EMTP.

is used. The branch

ratio is multiplied by the ratio branch
current flowing to the total fault using the following equation to
ratio:
obtain the bus
Fault point
Ratio
Sum ABS tan
branch current

total fault current

(4)

VI. PROPOSED WEIGHTED

RATIO CURRENT METHOD

The weighted
ratio current method presented by the authors has a means to reduce the high
ratio that can occur
ratio of IEC Method A variation
when the largest branch

The ANSI/IEEE method, IEC Method C, and other procedures provided in this paper may not have any vigorous proof
that they provide a conservative estimate for actual
ratios which affect the dc component. They provide an expedient

DARTAWAN AND ST. PIERRE: METHODS TO DETERMINE FAULT POINT

RATIO FOR BREAKER EVALUATION

943

TABLE II
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX X=R RATIO
X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 5:0, X 2 = j 5:0, R 3 = 0:08, X 3 = j 0:8

Fig. 4. Plot of bus X=R ratios for various methods on a three-branch circuit.
Data are from Table II.

The actual dc component can be found by time dependent variables using an Electro-Magnetic Transient Program
(EMTP) rather than complex impedance reduction used in
short-circuit programs. However, for systems with more than 10
or 20 nodes, a time-dependent model becomes time consuming
for the engineer.
VII. FAULT POINT

Shaded areas are where the method is nonconservative.

means to include conservatism that is missing from the complex

impedance network reduction.

COMPARISONS

As mentioned, fault point

ratio affects the dc component
and, therefore, the total fault current. The higher the fault point
ratio, the higher the dc component.
The authors provided two simple networks shown in Figs. 1
and 2 that could represent a large system network reduction. A
ratios from ANSI/IEEE sepcomparison of the calculated
arate and
, IEC Method C, complex impedance reduction,
and the three proposed methods given in this paper were compared to an EMTP model. The results of the EMTP program
was taken to be the more accurate of the methods used since it
accounted for the dc time constants in each branch.
ratios were examined for the
A wide range of branch
systems shown in Figs. 1 and 2. While it is not practical to exratios along with
amine an infinite combination of branch
various branch impedances, enough information can be gained
from the samples in this paper to make some observations. For
each one-line configuration examined, four different values of
impedances were used while the
ratio was
varied from 0.1 to 200. The impedances used in the models are
given in Table I.
A typical output plot of the EMTP program showing current
asymmetry is shown in Fig. 3. From the peak current, the time to
ratio for
peak, and the symmetrical current, the composite
the system can be found (shown in the Appendix). The effective
ratio determined from the EMTP model was compared
ratio from the above calculation methods. Table II
to the
gives the comparison of the proposed methods for the threeand
equal
branch system shown in Fig. 2 with a variable
to 5.0. The results of the other circuit impedance variations are
given in the Appendix.

944

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 40, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2004

TABLE III
rms MULTIPLIERS

FOR PEAK CURRENT AND ESTIMATION OF

RATIO FROM EMTP MODEL

X=R

Fig. 5. AC and dc diagram and current flows at 0.5 cycle.

Fig. 6. DC decay from EMTP model for the three-branch circuit shown in
Fig. 5.

In Table II, the EMTP model

ratios are equal to or
greater than those from the complex impedance reduction
method as noted by the EMTP ratios being greater than 1.0.
The shaded values show where the proposed calculation shaded

shaded values show where the proposed calculation methods

ratios less than the EMTP model. These shaded
have
ratios that could
values indicate possible nonconservative
underestimate the dc short-circuit current and, therefore, the
dc
. For some of the methods, the
total rms current ac
difference is small and would have little effect on the total rms
breaker current. For the simple networks of Figs. 1 and 2, the
ratio from the ANSI/IEEE method can be significantly
lower than the
ratio of the complex impedance reduction
ratio is less than 0.6. The graphical comparison
when
is shown in Fig. 4. Calculation methods ANSI/IEEE, IEC
can have
Method A Variation, and Weighted
ratios that are much higher than the EMTP program results.
ratios as determined from IEC Method C and the
The
characteristic current method tend to track together. The IEC
Method C appears to be closer to EMTP results, but less likely to
ratios. In Fig. 4, the CCM method
be conservative for low

DARTAWAN AND ST. PIERRE: METHODS TO DETERMINE FAULT POINT

TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX
RATIO X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 5:0, X 2 = j 5:0

RATIO FOR BREAKER EVALUATION

X=R

TABLE V
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX
RATIO X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:5, X 2 = j 5:0

945

X=R

Shaded areas are where the method is nonconservative.

has a unique bend when the phase angle of the current in one
branch becomes greater than 90 . Therefore, it makes the
ratio nonconservative for this condition.
VIII. AC AND DC CURRENT FLOWS
The purpose of this section is to show that the dc component
for the branch currents cannot be easily calculated using the
complex impedance fault point
ratio.

Shaded areas are where the method is nonconservative.

Fig. 5 shows an example of the ac and dc current flow in

the three-branch equivalent system. The ac current flow follows
Kirchhoffs current law. Calculating the dc components using
(2) above for each branch in this case does not result in the
common branch current equaling the parallel path current. This

946

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 40, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2004

TABLE VI
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX
RATIO X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:2, X 2 = j 1:0

X=R

Shaded areas are where the method is nonconservative.

is likely the reason that ANSI/IEEE and IEC state that

ratio
cannot be accurately determined. In most cases calculating the
ratio will result in
dc component based on the ac branch
the two parallel branch dc flows being greater than the common
ratio to determine the
branch flow. Therefore, using the ac

TABLE VII
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX
RATIO X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:1, X 2 = j 1:0

X=R

Shaded areas are where the method is nonconservative.

dc component results in a conservative dc component when the

branch dc flows are added.
In this simplified system with the right combination of impedances, the real component of the ac current can flow away

DARTAWAN AND ST. PIERRE: METHODS TO DETERMINE FAULT POINT

RATIO FOR BREAKER EVALUATION

TABLE VIII
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX X=R RATIO
X 1 = j 5:0, R 2 = 0:5, X 2 = j 5:0, R3 = 0:08, X 3 = j 0:8

Shaded areas are where the method is nonconservative.

from the faulted bus. For this situation, the sum of the branch dc
components may be less than the common branch current.
Shown in Fig. 5, top diagram, is the dc current component
calculated from the branch current using its phase angle and

947

TABLE IX
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX X=R RATIO
X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:2, X 2 = 1:0, R3 = 0:08, X 3 = j 0:8

Shaded areas are where the method is nonconservative.

then comparing this dc component with the dc component taken

from the EMTP model, lower diagram, shown in parentheses.
The calculated dc currents do not total correctly. Fig. 6 shows
the decaying dc current in each branch as determined from the

948

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 40, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2004

TABLE X
COMPARISON OF OTHER METHOD X=R RATIOS TO COMPLEX X=R RATIO
X 1 = j 5:0, R2 = 0:1, X 2 = 1:0, R3 = 0:08, X 3 = j 0:8

Shaded areas are where the method is nonconservative.

EMTP simulation. These currents total correctly. In an actual

system, the different dc decay rates in each branch influences
the dc decay in the other branches. Therefore, it is difficult
to calculate the branch dc flows without a time-dependent
model.

IX. CONCLUSION
While the eight circuit configurations do not represent an exratios, they do
haustive examination of different system
method would be a
show that the CCM or the weighted
good compromise between the separate and
network reductions recommended in ANSI/IEEE Standard and IEC-60909
Method C.
Both the ANSI/IEEE and the IEC methods require the complete network to be reduced at least twice. It is the contention
of the authors that a complex network reduction has enough inratio to similar
formation to approximate the fault point
accuracy as the present ANSI/IEEE and IEC dual network reductions.
The calculation of the dc component by the CCM or
approach should not require as much comweighted
puter time as the second matrix building and reduction used in
the present standards. In the authors opinion, the CCM method
method appears to be a more reasonable
or the weighted
approach than the present ANSI/IEEE or IEC methods.
From this paper the following points are made.
ratio
1) The complex impedance network reduction
ratio and, therefore, may
is lower than the EMTP
under estimate the dc component.
2) The IEC Method C does a good job in matching the
ratio, but the IEC Method C can be
EMTP network
ratios.
nonconservative for some
3) ANSI/IEEE method and IEC Method A Variation
ratios below those of the EMTP model.
do yield
methods also yield
The CCM and Weighted
ratios below those of the EMTP model but in fewer
instances and with smaller deviation. The procedure of
IEC Method A Variation consistently provides the most
ratio.
conservative
4) ANSI/IEEE method, IEC Method A Variation, and
do occasionally overestimate the
Weighted
ratio significantly.
ratio appears to do the best
5) The CCM method for
overall job without being overly conservative.
calculated by complex
6) The largest ratio between the
network reduction to that by EMTP is approximately 2.5.
Therefore, if any of the above methods yields an
ratio that is greater than 2.5 times that calculated from the
ratio, it is satisfactory
complex impedance network
to use an
ratio 2.5 times the complex impedance
ratio.
network
ratio for the proposed
7) If the calculated fault point
ratio,
methods is less than the complex impedance
then use the complex impedance
ratio.
APPENDIX
Tables IIIX are supplementary tables for the configurations
not given in the main body of the paper. Table III gives the
peak and time to peak for a short-circuit current. From these
two values the actual fault point can be obtained by differential
equations or by an iteration technique. A direct equation to obratio knowing the peak and time to peak is
tain the circuit

DARTAWAN AND ST. PIERRE: METHODS TO DETERMINE FAULT POINT

RATIO FOR BREAKER EVALUATION

not a simple procedure. Therefore, an approximation to the acratio from the equations listed at the bottom
tual fault point
of Table III was used. The time to peak and ratio of peak to
rms current was taken from the EMTP results. The Corrected
ratio using these equations is a close approximation to
ratio as noted by the first and last
the actual fault point
columns.
Tables IVVII provide a summary for the Fig. 1 configuration, while Tables VIIIX provide a summary for the Fig. 2
configuration. The shaded areas indicate where the method is
nonconservative compared to the EMTP model.

REFERENCES
[1] Application Guide for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a
Symmetrical Current Basis, ANSI/IEEE Standard C37.010-1999.
[2] Short-Circuit Current Calculation in Three-Phase a.c Systems, IEC
60909-1988, International Standard.
[3] G. Parise, A new approach to calculate the decaying AC contributions
to short-circuit: The characteristic currents method, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Applicat., vol. 31, pp. 214221, Jan./Feb. 1995.
to
[4] H. Reichenstein and J. Gomez, Relationship of X=R, I and I
asymmetry in resistance/reactance circuits, IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat.,
vol. IA-21, Mar./Apr. 1985.
[5] IIIE. Gross and R. Kuntzendorf, Current asymmetry in resistance-reactance circuits, Trans. AIEE, vol. 79, pp. 897900, Dec. 1960.
[6] IIIE. Gross and B. Thapar, Current asymmetry in resistance-reactance
circuits-II, Trans. AIEE, vol. 80, pp. 800803, Dec. 1961.
[7] C. St. Pierre, A Practical Guide to Short-Circuit Calculations. Dexter,
MI: Thomson-Shore, Aug. 2001.

949

Ketut Dartawan (M00) received the B.S. degree in

electrical power systems from Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya, Indonesia, in 1994.
In Indonesia, he was a System and Production
Engineer with Freeport-McMoRan, a copper and
gold mining company. In 1999, he joined Power
Technologies, Inc. (PTI), Schenectady, NY, as a
Consultant. His industrial power system experience
includes short-circuit analysis, power flow, motor
starting, protective relaying coordination, harmonics,
power quality measurements, and harmonic filter
design. He has performed large-scale dynamic studies for interconnection
systems in the U.S., as well as several other countries. He is also an Instructor
for several power system courses offered by PTI.

Conrad St. Pierre received the B.S. degree from

the University of Maine, Orono, and the M.S. degree
from Union College, Schenectady NY.
From 1965 to 1991, he was with General Electric
Company, as an Electrical Engineer and Engineering
Manager. His work included application, system,
and analytical engineering on electric power
systems. From 1991 to 1997, he was with Power
Technologies, Inc. (PTI), Schenectady, NY, as
Manager of Industrial Power Systems, performing
analytical studies. In 1997, he formed Electric Power
Consultants, LLC, Schenectady, NY, which provides analytical engineering
services to clients. He has written numerous IEEE papers and magazine
articles. In 2001, he published a book on short-circuit calculations.
Mr. St. Pierre has been a Member of several IEEE subcommittees, and he was
the Chairman of the Violet Book Working Group which deals with short-circuit
calculations. He was a Member of the U.S. National Committee of the International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Advisory Group for TC73/WG1
and WG2 concerning short-circuit currents and calculation methods.