a oriented, three-phase ieee 24-substation test system

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2010 59

A Breaker-Oriented, Three-PhaseIEEE 24-Substation Test System

Q. Binh Dam, Member, IEEE, A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos, Fellow, IEEE, Gerald Thomas Heydt, Fellow, IEEE, andAnjan Bose, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Accurate bus-oriented, three-phase modeling ofpower systems is desirable for advanced applications and hasbecome practical due to increased computational capability.To assist research activities in this area, this paper presents abenchmark three-phase test system. The proposed system isbased on the 24-bus IEEE Reliability Test System that has beenconverted into a 24-substation, breaker-oriented, three-phasemodel. The model is available in electronic form at the site:http://pscal.ece.gatech.edu/testsys/. The proposed model is in-tended for use in research for three-phase power flow analysis,reliability analysis, fault analysis, transient stability, evaluationof fault currents through specific breakers, risk assessment ofbreaker failures, and other applications.

Index Terms—Bus-breaker arrangements, circuit breaker, faultanalysis, IEEE Reliability Test System, substation.

I. INTRODUCTION

T HE IEEE Reliability Test System (RTS) was developedby the IEEE Reliability subcommittee and publicized in

1978. The purpose of this system is to provide a benchmarksystem for testing reliability methods. The benchmark systemcomplements other IEEE standardized systems, which haveoffered engineers and researchers common test-beds on whichto test their algorithms [1]. Over the years, the reliability testsystem has been used for testing reliability methods and alsofor a variety of other analysis methods. The original RTSwas a 24-bus system; more recently, a 96-bus system hasalso been developed [2]. Recent interest in analysis methodsthat are based on more detailed models of power systems hasgenerated the need for a test system that will support theseefforts. For example, three-phase models are being used forstate estimators, improved fault analysis, three-phase powerflow, and other. In addition, concerns about breaker adequacyas fault currents increase have generated the need for faultanalysis methods that provide individual breaker fault currents,

Manuscript received February 24, 2009; revised July 02, 2009. First pub-lished November 03, 2009; current version published January 20, 2010. Thiswork was supported in part by a grant from the Power System Engineering Re-search Center (PSERC) and in part by the NSF-I/URC program, award number0080012. Paper no. TPWRS-00095-2009.

Q. B. Dam and A. P. S. Meliopoulos are with the Georgia Institute ofTechnology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 USA (e-mail: [email protected];[email protected]).

G. T. Heydt is with Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA (e-mail:[email protected]).

A. Bose is with Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99163 USA(e-mail: [email protected]).

Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available onlineat http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2031838

that is, fault analysis with models that explicitly represent thelocation of the breakers and determine the exact fault currentthrough specific breakers. Similarly, it is desirable to quantifythe effects of breaker topology and relaying schemes on systemreliability, which leads to the need of a breaker-oriented model.As these methods develop, it will be expedient to have a bench-mark system for testing and comparing proposed methods. Thesignificance of the detailed model approach is to accommodaterealistic circuit breaker configurations that accurately mimicactual system performance in the field.

This paper proposes a breaker-oriented, three-phase model ofthe original IEEE 24-bus RTS with a complete specification ofall related data. Specifically, while the model retains most ofthe parameters of the original RTS, substation information andthree-phase models that were not present in the original paperare now an integral part of the test system. Substation topolo-gies were introduced in the 1996 revision of the RTS [2] but re-ceived little emphasis at that time. The purpose of this paper is to1) re-emphasize the importance of the substation model by con-verting each bus of the 24-bus RTS into a substation and makingthe substation configurations an integral part of the test systemand 2) convert the system model into a three-phase model. Theproposed substation configuration for each bus of the originalIEEE 24-bus RTS is arbitrary but retains the basic characteristicsof the original test system; for example, a generation bus willhave a breaker configuration, a step up transformer arrangement,and unit models that are typical of such systems and have thesame parameters as the original system. Moreover, each trans-mission line in the original IEEE 24-bus RTS is replaced witha physically based, three-phase transmission line with parame-ters that closely match the sequence parameters of the originalsystem. Other modifications include updated fuel costs to reflectrecent trends in the energy markets.

The proposed breaker-oriented, three-phase RTS is intendedfor use by researchers to test proposed algorithms for advancedpower system analysis and to allow the power systems commu-nity to have a common test system for comparative studies.

II. MOTIVATION

A. Realistic Network Models to Investigate ContemporaryPower Systems Issues

Present electric power networks were designed many decadesago to meet the energy demand of that time—basically, to pro-vide electric power to their customers and assist each otherunder emergency conditions to maximize reliability of supply.Generating units are constantly being added to the network tofeed steadily increasing loads and expand power markets on

0885-8950/$26.00 © 2009 IEEE

60 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2010

Fig. 1. Example bus-oriented system model.

Fig. 2. Breaker-oriented model of system in Fig. 1.

their way to deregulation. A major side effect of generationcapacity growth is the increase of fault currents [3]. Devicesdesigned decades ago to reliably meet the demand at that timemust now operate at levels that may be above their designlimits. The appearance of both synchronous generator-baseddistributed generation as well as inverter-based distributedgeneration lowers the effective driving point impedance atnearby system buses and thereby raises the fault duty. This, inturn, generates a major issue related to the safe operation ofcircuit breakers, because their ability to clear faults above theirdesign limits is compromised. Increased fault currents alsohave implications on protection coordination. Reliability is atstake, since circuit breakers are the last barrier to protect otherparts of a circuit or a network against faults [4]. Besides, studiesconfirmed that most system outages involve circuit breakersfailures [5]. In particular, the majority of multiple commonmode outages are caused by breaker failures, and the lack ofsituation awareness can result from erroneous assumptionsabout circuit breaker status. These concerns can be addressedwith detailed models and advanced analysis methods that utilizea breaker-oriented, three-phase model.

B. Circuit Breaker Modeling Issues in Bus-Oriented Systems

An illustration of the difference between the bus-oriented andthe proposed breaker-oriented network modeling approaches isshown in Figs. 1 and 2.

In most analysis methods, circuit breakers are replaced byclosed or open circuits depending on breaker status, resulting ina bus-oriented model as shown in Fig. 1. Fault currents throughindividual breakers cannot be computed using bus-orientedmodels, unless breakers are in series with lines, transformers,generators, or other devices.

Fig. 3. Compromise between equation coupling versus modeling error between(a) a three-phase circuit and (b) its equivalent sequence network.

Bus-oriented models are not suitable to check the adequacy orinterrupting capability of individual substation breakers againstexpected fault currents [6]. The impact of distributed resourceson fault currents is analyzed in other publications [3], [7], but thelack of information about circuit breaker arrangements preventssuch analyses from relating to circuit breaker ratings.

Breaker-oriented models have also proven essential in stateestimation applications. State estimation aims at determiningbus voltages based on a redundant set of measurements. Manymeasurements are on CTs and PTs on the two sides of breakers.With bus-oriented models, measurements on the two sidesof breakers must be converted to equivalent measurementson buses or lines. In addition, changes in breaker status maychange the bus-oriented model in real time (many times, werefer to this process as splitting the bus) [8], [9]. The use ofbreaker-oriented models allows state estimators to detect splitbuses or erroneous assumptions about system topology.

A test system model with breaker arrangements has been pro-posed for instructional purposes [10]; however, its limited sizeof six buses does not permit the same range of analyses as asystem of the size of the 24-bus system. Finally, while circuitbreaker arrangements are provided as a supplement of RTS-96,substation breakers have not been systematically integrated innetwork models because of the limited computational poweravailable at that time. This obstacle is no longer relevant, andthe authors believe that including the substation arrangements innetwork models improves modeling accuracy, and enable manyadvanced applications. The benefits of detailed models of sub-stations and breaker arrangements outweigh the computationalrequirements.

C. Accuracy Issues of Symmetrical Components

Traditional power system models utilize equivalent modelsbased on symmetrical components. Symmetrical componentstransform phase variables into positive, negative, and zerosequence components. The underlying assumption is thatpower systems are perfectly symmetric and operating underbalanced voltages and currents. Power flow computations andfault studies are simpler with symmetrical components ratherthan full three-phase models. This simplicity comes from thedecoupling of the equations involving mutual impedances(Fig. 3). In balanced sinusoidal operation, it is also sufficientto solve the positive sequence equivalent circuit only. This

DAM et al.: BREAKER-ORIENTED, THREE-PHASE IEEE 24-SUBSTATION TEST SYSTEM 61

simplicity has led most power system applications, such aspower flow and state estimation, to use single-phase analysisusing positive sequence equivalent circuits.

In reality, power systems are nearly, but not perfectly, sym-metric, and they operate at slightly unbalanced conditions. Forinstance, untransposed transmission lines are asymmetric andcannot be accurately modeled with a positive sequence circuitalone. As a result, symmetrical components introduce system-atic errors in per-phase variables of about 4% to 6% [11]. Asindustry demands more accurate power system models, the sys-tematic symmetrical component modeling approach must be re-considered.

D. Power Systems Physical Models

The proposed three-phase models for the benchmark testsystem are based on physically based three-phase models.Physical models of transmission lines are constructed based onparameters such as the type and arrangement of phase conduc-tors and neutral (shield) wires, tower geometry, line length, andsoil resistivity. The proposed models for synchronous genera-tors are single-axis three-phase models to minimize complexity.These models are derived from the sub-transient, transient andsynchronous positive, negative, and zero sequence parame-ters of the generators. The proposed three-phase models fortransformers are linear models that are derived from positive,negative, and zero sequence parameters of the transformers.Two winding three-phase or multi-winding three-phase trans-formers can be represented. The overall approach results in aphysically based model that has the following general form:

(1)

The three-phase, physical models allow the computation ofvoltages and currents at each phase with high fidelity. Anotheradvantage is that since the neutral, grounding, neutral/shieldwires are explicitly modeled and they are an integral part of themodel, the neutral voltage (ground potential rise) and the cur-rent distribution in neutrals and grounds are computed for theconditions of specific applications [12].

It is important to note that equivalent sequence models maystill be derived from the physical model by simply assumingthat the voltage of all neutrals is zero and applying the symmet-rical transformation. The resulting symmetrical models (posi-tive, negative, and zero sequence models) will be an approxi-mation of the three-phase model.

The proposed three-phase, breaker-oriented network model ismore accurate than the usual models we use for power systemanalysis. We will refer to it as the high-fidelity model.

III. PROPOSED 24-SUBSTATION RELIABILITY TEST

SYSTEM—SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCESM AND IMPROVEMENTS

TO THE ORIGINAL IEEE 24-BUS SYSTEM

The proposed breaker-oriented, three-phase system is de-rived from the IEEE 24-bus reliability test system that wasfirst published in 1979 and updated in 1996. The following

Fig. 4. Breaker-oriented model of Substation 230.

procedure was employed to develop the breaker-oriented,three-phase model: 1) each power line has been replaced witha three-phase, physically based model with positive sequenceparameters approximately equal to the line parameters in theoriginal system, 2) each bus of the original 24 RTS has beenreplaced with a substation with a specific breaker arrangement(ring, breaker and a half, etc.), 3) each generator has beenreplaced with a generator and a step-up transformer and ap-propriate breaker arrangement, 4) physical underground cableshave been selected with sequence parameters approximatelyequal to the original cable parameters, and 5) each transformerhas been replaced with a three-phase transformer with approxi-mately the same sequence parameters as in the original system.In addition, some parameters of various components have beenmodified to better reflect present conditions—these are mainlyproduction cost parameters for generators.

A. Buses and Substations

The original 24-bus RTS [1] consists of simplified represen-tation of generator buses and load buses. This simplified, bus-oriented model of the network does not model the substationsand how the different lines are connected to each other. The1996 version of the system [2] touches upon this issue. Specifi-cally, each bus is replaced by a substation with the topology ofthe breaker arrangements made explicit. Although breaker ar-rangements are optional in RTS-96, the proposed 24-substationsystem explicitly includes these arrangements. The goal is toturn the explicit modeling of substation topologies into a sys-tematic approach.

As an example, consider bus 23 of the original 24-bus system.This bus has three generators and four circuits. The bus is re-placed with a substation of a specific breaker arrangement as il-lustrated in Fig. 4. A ring bus scheme has been selected for thissubstation according to the suggested layout in RTS-96 [2] andeach generator is connected to the system via a step-up trans-former. Note that the arrangement shown in Fig. 4 is a typicaldesign. To make the overall model interesting and more realistic,we have selected a mix of substation bus arrangements, such as


Fig. 5. Example of a three-phase, synchronous generator model with power,reliability, and fuel cost parameters.

breaker and a half, ring buses, double breaker, etc. Therefore,the substations in the proposed test system have different relia-bility levels. A summary of substation topologies found in theproposed test system is provided in Fig. 8, Appendix A. Thecomplete model is posted on the web site (the link is given inthe abstract) and it is available to anyone wishing to experimentwith this model.

B. Generating Units

The generating unit ratings and fuels are the same as in theoriginal data of the 24-bus IEEE RTS. Generator transient reac-tances and quadratic cost coefficients are provided in Table III,Appendix A. This section details the changes of interest for net-work analysis.

1) Generator Transient Reactance : As an addition to theoriginal 24-bus RTS, additional parameters for the internalmodel of the generators are provided. The most importantparameters for network fault and stability analysis are thetransient reactances. The generator transient impedances aretypical: 18% for positive sequence, 19% for negative sequence,and 9% for zero sequence. Specific impedance values for eachgenerator are available on the website.

2) Fuel Costs: Updated fuel costs have been used in the costmodel of the generators to reflect recent prices in the energymarket. The costs listed in Table I are estimates for the U.S. [1],[13], [14]. The operating costs of each generator per hour aremodeled with a quadratic function of the power :

(2)

The quadratic cost comes from two different contributions: 1)operating and maintenance (O&M) costs and 2) fuel costs.

The O&M linear cost coefficients provided in [1] are ex-pressed in $/MW/year. We provide the same coefficientsand (in $/h and $/MWh, respectively):

(3)

Fig. 6. Example of line model: (a) physically based line model; (b) pi-equiva-lent sequence network (for comparison with existing models only).

Quadratic fuel costs for one plant are computed from the pro-vided measurements of power output and heat consumption inthe original IEEE 24-bus RTS as follows.

1) Let be a 1-column, -row vector representing the heatconsumed by the plant (in MBtu/h) for reference outputpower levels. The RTS-79 data provides four heat-powerpairs, and thus, .

2) If the specified power levels are (expressedin MW), let the matrix be

......

...(4)


Fig. 7. Modified IEEE 24-substation reliability test system network.


Fig. 8. Typical bus arrangements.

TABLE IGENERATOR FUEL COSTS

TABLE IISUBSTATION DATA

3) Let , with in MBtu/h, in MBtu/MWh,

and in MBtu/MW/MWh. These are the precursors to thecoefficients of the energy cost function. Then the product

is the amount of calorific energy needed to op-erate the plant for one hour.

4) The least square approximation of the product above givesas a result:

(5)

5) The coefficients , , and must be multiplied by theprice of fuel (in $/MBtu) to obtain a cost per hour (resp.per MWh, and per MW per MWh).

6) The expression for the cost coefficients , , and is

(6)The heat consumption data from the original IEEE 24-bus

RTS were used to obtain the quadratic fuel consumption datalisted in table via the above-described procedure.

Recent energy data show that energy sources such as naturalgas and renewable sources were not used in 1979. These energysources today represent a non-negligible fraction of the produc-tion and therefore should be included in future test systems.Generation technology also has evolved for traditional energysources, and the efficiency of thermal generators has been im-proved. Updates to generator data from the original IEEE 24-busRTS may be necessary to reflect this evolution. For consistency,however, the proposed test system keeps the generator data asclose as possible to the original data for the 24-bus system. De-tailed characteristics of the generating units used in the proposed24-substation test system are shown in Table III in Appendix Awith the necessary data to model the generators (see Fig. 5). Thesame data can be found in the generator document on the web-site given in the abstract.

C. Transmission Lines

The original IEEE RTS system represents each transmissionline with a single-phase, positive sequence circuit. In the pro-posed test system, these circuits have been replaced with a phys-ical model of transmission lines that account for the lengths,phase conductor types and sizes, shield wire types and sizes, andtower configurations. The parameters have been selected in such


TABLE IIIGENERATOR DATA BY PLANT TYPE

a way that the equivalent positive sequence model of each line isclose to the positive sequence model of the same line in the orig-inal 24-bus RTS. The procedure to derive sequence parametersfrom physical line properties is available in the literature (e.g.,[15]). An example of a physical transmission line model withits equivalent sequence parameters is shown in Fig. 6. Note thatthe physical parameters presented in Fig. 6 are not specific toa particular computer program and may be obtained from utili-ties. The positive sequence model of this line is compared to thepositive sequence impedances of the same line in the originalRTS. For this line, the 24-bus RTS lists a positive sequence se-ries impedance of or .The equivalent positive sequence impedance of the three-phase,physical model is .

The physical based model is fully described with the equa-tion: (1), where for the line . Note that theadmittance matrix completely defines the asymmetric modelof the line. For convenience and standardization, the definingdata for the 24-substation system include the admittance matrix

for each circuit in the system.The details of the transmission line parameters are given in

Table IV in Appendix A as well as in the corresponding docu-ment on the website given in the abstract.

D. Voltage Correction Devices

The proposed test system includes voltage correction devices,i.e., capacitors and reactors. The ratings of voltage correctiondevices have been so selected as to enable improved voltageprofiles across the network. In addition, all voltage correctiondevices are assumed to be wye-connected and grounded. Theratings of the voltage correction devices can be found on thewebsite.

E. Loads

Loads have been converted to three-phase models with ratingsidentical to the loads defined in the original IEEE 24-bus RTS.Load data are available on the website.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

A 24-substation, three-phase, breaker-oriented system isproposed as a benchmark system for advanced three-phaseanalysis procedures. The proposed system has been derivedfrom the 24-bus IEEE Reliability Test System with appropriateconversion of models and additions so that a 24-substation,breaker-oriented, three-phase model has emerged. Each busin the original model has been replaced by a substation con-taining an explicit bus arrangement and connection scheme oftransmission lines, loads, transformers, and generators. Thesubstation models are now an integral part of the networkmodel. The proposed implementation also uses a representationof transmission lines based on physical parameters and con-tains updated fuel costs that reflect current prices in the energymarket.

A keyword-oriented data file of the proposed 24-substationtest system is available for download on the website. We se-lected the keyword orientation so that anyone can develop a filterprogram to read the data without the need for additional docu-mentation. A sample computer program that reads the providedkey-oriented data file is posted on the website at http://pscal.ece.gatech.edu/testsys/. The source code of this sample program isalso available to help researchers extract data from the providedkey-oriented file. In addition, the authors are currently workingon converting the keyword oriented data file into the CommonInformation Model (CIM) format [16].


TABLE IVTRANSMISSION LINE DATA

The breaker-oriented, three-phase model adds a new level ofdetail in network models while retaining the merits of the orig-inal IEEE 24-bus RTS. With a model that includes substationsand their bus-breaker arrangements, new analysis methods canbe developed that are more realistic than the present method-ologies. We hope that the proposed test system will help the de-velopment of more sophisticated and realistic methodologies ofthe usual power system analysis problems.

APPENDIX

PROPOSED IEEE 24-SUBSTATION RELIABILITY TEST SYSTEM

This appendix describes the proposed 24-Substation Three-Phase Test System in general terms. A general layout of the

system is illustrated in Fig. 7. The original 24-bus system hasbeen modified by converting all the buses to substations withspecific breaker arrangements. There are 195 circuit breakers inthis system. Examples of basic breaker arrangements are pro-vided in Fig. 8. The topology of each substation in the proposednetwork is derived from the standard bus arrangements shownin Fig. 8. Table II provides the specific selections made for eachsubstation in the proposed test system. Table III provides a sum-mary of the generator data. Table IV provides a summary of thetransmission lines data.

The substation arrangements provide a more realistic modelto study the reliability of the system or perform a number ofother important analysis procedures such as fault analysis and


transient stability. The complete substation bus arrangementsare posted on the website given in the abstract.

REFERENCES

[1] IEEE RTS Task Force of the APM Subcommittee, “IEEE reliability testsystem”,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 2047–2054,Nov./Dec. 1979.

[2] IEEE RTS Task Force of the APM Subcommittee, “IEEE reliability testsystem-96”,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1010–1020,Aug. 1999.

[3] N. Nimpitiwan, G. T. Heydt, J. Blevins, and A. B. Cummings, “Poten-tial economic impact of fault currents contributed by distributed gen-eration,” in Proc. 2005 IEEE Power Eng. Soc. General Meeting, SanFrancisco, CA, Jun. 2005, pp. 678–683.

[4] R. D. Garzon, High Voltage Circuit Breakers, Design and Applications,2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2002.

[5] D. P. Ross, G. V. Welch, and H. L. Willis, “Sensitivity of system re-liability to component aging in metropolitan, urban, and rural areas,”in Proc. 2001 IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conf. and Expo.,Atlanta, GA, 2001.

[6] T. C. Nguyen, S. Chan, R. Bailey, and T. Nguyen, “Auto-check circuitbreaker interrupting capabilities,” IEEE Comput. Appl. Power, vol. 15,no. 1, pp. 24–28, Jan. 2002.

[7] N. Nimpitiwan and G. Heydt, “Fault current allocation by theleast squares method,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 4, pp.2148–2150, Nov. 2005.

[8] A. Abur, H. Kim, and M. Celik, “Identifying the unknown circuitbreaker statuses in power networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10,no. 4, pp. 2029–2037, Nov. 1995.

[9] F. Wu and W.-H. Liu, “Detection of topology errors by state estima-tion,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 176–183, Feb. 1989.

[10] R. Billinton and S. Jonnavithula, “A test system for teaching overallpower system reliability assessment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.11, no. 4, pp. 1670–1676, Nov. 1996.

[11] A. P. Meliopoulos, B. Fardanesh, and S. Zelingher, “Power system stateestimation: Modeling error effects and impact on system operation,” inProc. 34th Hawaii Int. Conf. System Sciences, Maui, HI, Jan. 2001, pp.682–690.

[12] G. J. Cokkinides and A. P. S. Meliopoulos, “Transmission line mod-eling with explicit grounding representation,” Elect. Power Syst. Res.,vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 109–119, Apr. 1988.

[13] Monthly Energy Review, US Energy Information Agency (EIA), 2005,sec. 9.10.

[14] “IEEE tutorial on reliability,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. GeneralMeeting, Feb. 2005.

[15] A. P. Meliopoulos, Power Systems Grounding and Transients. NewYork: Marcel Dekker, 1988.

[16] Common Information Model, Electric Power Research Institute Std.CIM10, Nov. 2001.

Q. Binh Dam (S’05–M’09) is from Paris, France. Hereceived the E.E. diploma in 2003 from the NationalPolytechnic Institute of Toulouse, Toulouse, France,and the M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from the GeorgiaInstitute of Technology, Atlanta, in 2003 and 2009,respectively.

His research interests include circuit breaker relia-bility analysis and its applications to power systemsoperation and relaying. He has also interests in newtools and methodologies for testing protective relays.

A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos (M’76–SM’83–F’93) wasborn in Katerini, Greece, in 1949. He received theM.E. and E.E. diploma from the National TechnicalUniversity of Athens, Athens, Greece, in 1972, andthe M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from the GeorgiaInstitute of Technology, Atlanta, in 1974 and 1976,respectively.

In 1971, he worked for Western Electric in Atlanta.In 1976, he joined the Faculty of Electrical Engi-neering, Georgia Institute of Technology, where he ispresently a Georgia Power Distinguished Professor.

He is active in teaching and research in the general areas of modeling, analysis,and control of power systems. He has made significant contributions to powersystem grounding, harmonics, and reliability assessment of power systems. Heis the author of the books Power Systems Grounding and Transients (New York:Marcel Dekker, 1988) and Lightning and Overvoltage Protection, Section 27,Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers (New York: McGraw Hill, 1993).He holds three patents and he has published over 220 technical papers.

Dr. Meliopoulos received the IEEE Richard Kaufman Award in 2005. Heis the Chairman of the Georgia Tech Protective Relaying Conference and amember of Sigma Xi.

Gerald Thomas Heydt (S’62–M’64–SM’80–F’91)is from Las Vegas, NV. He received the Ph.D. de-gree in electrical engineering from Purdue Univer-sity, West Lafayette, IN.

His industrial experience is with the Common-wealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL, and E. G. &G., Mercury, NV. He is presently the Director of aPower Engineering Center Program at Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, where he is a Regents’ Professor.

Dr. Heydt is a member of the National Academyof Engineering.

Anjan Bose (M’68–SM’77–F’89) is the Dis-tinguished Professor of Power Engineering atWashington State University, Pullman. He hasconsulted on power system operation for numerouscompanies and governments all over the world.

Prof. Bose has over 35 years of experience in thepower industry and academe. His pioneering work indeveloping and implementing real-time analysis soft-ware for power grid control centers was cited in hiselection to Fellow of the IEEE. His work in the de-velopment of real time simulators, which are used

around the world for training grid operators, was cited in his election to theNational Academy of Engineering. He was also recognized by the IEEE withtheir Outstanding Power Engineering Educator Award, the Third MillenniumMedal and the Herman Halperin Electric Transmission & Distribution Award.

a oriented, three-phase ieee 24-substation test system

Documents